Skip to main content

Full text of "Fear God and take your own part"

See other formats




Take Your Own Part 


Theodore Roosevelt 


Copyright. 1916, 

Copyright, 1914, 

Copyright, 1915, 

Copyright, 1915 and 1916, 


Over two months have gone by since this book 
was published and during those two months af- 
fairs have moved rapidly, and at every point the 
march of events has shown the need of reducing 
to practice every principle herein laid down. 

The monotonous succession of outrages upon 
our people by the Mexicans was broken by a spec- 
tacular raid of Villa into American territory, 
which resulted in the death of half a dozen Amer- 
ican soldiers and an equal number of civilians. 
We accordingly asked Carranza to permit us to 
assist him in hunting down Villa and Carranza 
grudgingly gave the permission. We failed to 
get Villa; we had to fight the Villistas and at 
one moment also the Carranzistas ; we lost valu- 
able lives, and at this time of writing the expedi- 
tion is halted and it is announced at Washington 
that it is being considered whether or not it 
shall be withdrawn. We have not been able to 
scrape together the troops and equipment neces- 
sary to punish a single bandit. The professional 
pacificists and professional antipreparedness ad- 
vocates are invited to consider these facts. We 
are told we have kept the peace in Mexico. As a 
matter of fact we have twice been at war in Mex- 


ico within the last two years. Our failure to pre- 
pare, our failure to take action of a proper sort 
on the Mexican border has not averted blood- 
shed; it has invited bloodshed. It has cost the 
loss of more lives than were lost in the Spanish 
War. Our Mexican failure is merely the natural 
fruit of the policies of pacificism and anti-pre- 

Since the first edition of this book was pub- 
lished, President Wilson has notified Germany 
and has informed Congress that if Germany con- 
tinues submarine warfare against merchant and 
passenger steamers as she has carried it on for 
the last year America will take action. Appar- 
ently the first step is to be the sundering of diplo- 
matic relations. Such sunderance would, of 
course, mean nothing if the submarine war was 
continued. Merely to recall our Ambassador if 
men, women and children are being continually 
killed on the high seas and to take no further 
action would be about as effective as the conduct 
of a private individual who, when another man 
slapped his wife's face, retaliated by not bowing 
to the man. Therefore, either Germany will 
have to surrender on the point at issue, or this 
protest of ours will prove to have meant nothing, 
or else there must be a war. Fourteen months 
have elapsed since we sent our "strict account- 
ability" note to Germany demanding that there 



be no submarine warfare that should endanger 
the lives of American citizens. She did not be- 
lieve that we meant what we said and the war- 
fare has gone on. If she now stops, it will be 
proof positive that she would have stopped at the 
very outset had we made it evident that we meant 
what we said. In such case the loss of thousands 
of lives of men, women and children will be at 
our doors for having failed to make it evident 
that we meant what we said. If she does not 
stop, then we shall have to go to war or back 
down; and in that case it must be remembered 
that during these fourteen months and during 
the preceding seven months we have not pre- 
pared in naval, military or industrial matters in 
the smallest degree. The peace-at-any-price men, 
the professional pacificists shrieked loudly that 
to prepare would be to invite war. The Adminis- 
tration accepted their view and has not prepared. 
The result is that we are near to war. The blind- 
est can now see that had we, in August 1914 
when the great war began, ourselves begun ac- 
tively to prepare, we would now be in a position 
such that every one knew our words would be 
made good by our deeds. In such case no nation 
would dream of interfering with us or of refus- 
ing our demands; and each of the warring na- 
tions would vie with the others to keep us out of 
the war. Immediate preparedness at the outset 



of the war would have meant that there would 
never have been the necessity for sending the 
"strict accountability" note. It would have 
meant that there never would have been the mur- 
der of the thousands of men, women and children 
on the high seas. It would have meant that we 
would now be sure of peace for ourselves. It 
would have meant that we would now be ready 
to act the part of peacemaker for others. 

Sagamore Hill, April 2^.th, ipi6. 



This book is dedicated to the memory of 
Julia Ward Howe 

because in the vital matters fundamentally affecting 
the life of the Republic, she was as good a citizen 
of the Republic as Washington and Lincoln them- 
selves. She was in the highest sense a good wife 
and a good mother; and therefore she fulfilled the 
primary law of our being. She brought up with de- 
voted care and wisdom her sons and her daughters. 
At the same time she fulfilled her full duty to the 
commonwealth from the public standpoint. She 
preached righteousness and she practised righteous- 
ness. She sought the peace that comes as the hand- 
maiden of well doing. She preached that stern and 
lofty courage of soul which shrinks neither from war 
nor from any other form of suffering and hardship 
and danger if it is only thereby that justice can be 
served. She embodied that trait more essential than 
any other in the make-up of the men and women of 
this Republic the valor of righteousness. 



Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of 
the Lord; 

He is trampling out the vintage ivhere the grapes 
of wrath are stored; 

He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His ter- 
rible swift sword, 

His truth is marching on. 

I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred 

circling camps; 
They have builded Him an altar in the evening 

dews and damps; 
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and 

flaring lamps, 
His day is marching on. 

I have read a fiery gospel, writ in burnished rows 

of steel: 
"As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my 

grace shall deal; 
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent 

with His heel, 
Since God is marching on." 



He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall 
never call retreat; 

He is sifting out the hearts of men before His 

Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubi- 
lant, my feet, 

Our God is marching on. 

In the beauty of the lilies, Christ was born across 

the sea, 
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you 

and me; 
As he died to make men holy, let us die to make 

men free, 
While God is marching on. 



This book is based primarily upon, and mainly con- 
sists of, matter contained in articles' I have written in 
the Metropolitan Magazine during the past fourteen 
months. It also contains or is based upon an article 
contributed to the Wheeler Syndicate, a paper sub- 
mitted to the American Sociological Congress, and 
one or two speeches and public statements. In addi- 
tion there is much new matter/ including most of the 
first chapter. In part the old matter has been rear- 
ranged. For the most part, I have left it unchanged. 
In the few instances where what I spoke was in the 
nature of prophecy as to what might or would happen 
during the last year, the prophecy has been fulfilled, 
and I have changed the tense but not the purport of 
the statements. I have preferred to run the risk of 
occasional repetition rather than to attempt rewriting 
certain of the chapters, because whatever of value 
these chapters have had lay in the fact that in them I 
was applying- eternal principles of right to concrete 
cases which were of vital importance at the moment, 
instead of merely treating these eternal principles as 
having their place forever in the realm of abstract 
thought and never to be reduced to action. I was 
speaking to and for the living present about the imme- 
diate needs of the present. 



The principles set forth in this book are simply the 
principles of true Americanism within and without our 
own borders, the principles which, according to my 
abilities, I have preached and, according to my abil- 
ities, I have practised for the thirty-five years since, 
as a very young man, I first began to take an active 
interest in American history and in American political 

Sagamore Hill, February 3, 1916. 







VALUES . . . . . -59 










SAM ...... 205 








XII. CONCLUSION ..... 343 







READERS of Borrow will recognize in the 
heading of this chapter, which I have also 
chosen for the title of the book, a phrase used by 
the heroine of Lavengro. 

Fear God ; and take your own part ! Fear God, 
in the true sense of the word, means love God, 
respect God, honor God ; and all of this can only 
be done by loving our neighbor, treating him 
justly and mercifully, and in all ways endeavor- 
ing to protect him from injustice and cruelty ; 
thus obeying, as far as our human frailty will 
permit, the great and immutable law of right- 

We fear God when we do justice to and de- 
mand justice for the men within our own bor- 
ders. We are false to the teachings of righteous- 
ness if we do not do such justice and demand 




READERS of Borrow will recognize in the 
heading of this chapter, which I have also 
chosen for the title of the book, a phrase used by 
the heroine of Lavengro. 

Fear God ; and take your own part ! Fear God, 
in the true sense of the word, means love God, 
respect God, honor God; and all of this can only 
be done by loving our neighbor, treating him 
justly and mercifully, and in all ways endeavor- 
ing to protect him from injustice and cruelty ; 
thus obeying, as far as our human frailty will 
permit, the great and immutable law of right- 

We fear God when we do justice to and de- 
mand justice for the men within our own bor- 
ders. We are false to the teachings of righteous- 
ness if we do not do such justice and demand 



such justice. We must do it to the weak, and we 
must do it to the strong. We do not fear God 
if we show mean envy and hatred of those who 
are better off than we are; and still less do we 
fear God if we show a base arrogance towards 
and selfish lack of consideration for those who 
are less well off. We must apply the same stand- 
ard of conduct alike to man and to woman, to 
rich man and to poor man, to employer and em- 
ployee. We must organize our social and indus- 
trial life so as to secure a reasonable equality of 
opportunity for all men to show the stuff that is 
in them, and a reasonable division among those 
engaged in industrial work of the reward for 
that industrial work, a division which shall take 
into account all the qualities that contribute to 
the necessary success. We must demand hon- 
esty, justice, mercy, truthfulness, in our dealings 
with one another within our own borders. Out- 
side of our own borders we must treat other na- 
tions as we would wish to be treated in return, 
judging each in any given crisis as we ourselves 
ought to be judged that is, by our conduct in 
that crisis. If they do ill, we show that we fear 
God when we sternly bear testimony against 
them and oppose them in any way and to what- 
ever extent the needs require. If they do well, 
we must not wrong them ourselves. Finally, if 
we are really devoted to a lofty ideal we must 



in so far as our strength permits aid them if 
they are wronged by others. When we sit idly 
by while Belgium is being overwhelmed, and roll- 
ing up our eyes prattle with unctuous self-right- 
eousness about "the duty of neutrality," we show 
that we do not really fear God; on the contrary, 
we show an odious fear of the devil, and a mean 
readiness to serve him. 

But in addition to fearing God, it is necessary 
that we should be able and ready to take our 
own part. The man who cannot take his own 
part is a nuisance in the community, a source of 
weakness, an encouragement to wrongdoers and 
an added burden to the men who wish to do what 
is right. If he cannot take his own part, then 
somebody else has to take it for him; and this 
means that his weakness and cowardice and inef- 
ficiency place an added burden on some other 
man and make that other man's strength by just 
so much of less avail to the community as a 
whole. No man can take the part of any one 
else unless he is able to take his own part. This 
is just as true of nations as of men. A nation 
that cannot take its own part is at times almost 
as fertile a source of mischief in the world at 
large as is a nation which does wrong to others, 
for its very existence puts a premium on such 
wrongdoing. Therefore, a nation must fit itself 
to defend its honor and interest against outside 


aggression ; and this necessarily means that in a 
free democracy every man fit for citizenship 
must be trained so that he can do his full duty 
to the nation in war no less than in peace. 

Unless we are thorough-going Americans and 
unless our patriotism is part of the very fiber 
of our being, we can neither serve God nor take 
our own part. Whatever may be the case in an 
infinitely remote future, at present no people can 
render any service to humanity unless as a people 
they feel an intense sense of national cohesion 
and solidarity. The man who loves other nations 
as much as he does his own, stands on a par with 
the man who loves other women as much as he 
does his own wife. The United States can ac- 
complish little for mankind, save in so far as 
within its borders it develops an intense spirit 
of Americanism. A flabby cosmopolitanism, es- 
pecially if it expresses itself through a flabby pa- 
cifism, is not only silly, but degrading. It rep- 
resents national emasculation. The professors 
of every form of hyphenated Americanism are 
as truly the foes of this country as if they dwelled 
outside its borders and made active war against 
it. This is not a figure of speech, or a hyperbolic 
statement. The leaders of the hyphenated- 
American movement in this country (who dur- 
ing the last eighteen months have been the pro- 
fessional German- Americans and Austro-Ameri- 



cans) are also leaders in the movement against 
preparedness. I have before me a little pamphlet, 
circulated by a "German-American" organiza- 
tion, consisting of articles written by a German- 
American for a paper which claims to be the lead- 
ing German paper in Illinois. This pamphlet is 
a bitter attack upon the policy of preparedness 
for the United States, and a slanderous assault 
on those advocating this American policy. It is, 
therefore, an effort in the interest of Germany 
to turn the United States into a larger Belgium 
an easy prey for Germany whenever Germany 
desires to seize it. These professional German- 
Americans and Pro-Germans are Anti-American 
to the core. They play the part of traitors, pure 
and simple. Once it was true that this country 
could not endure half free and half slave. To- 
day it is true that it can not endure half Ameri- 
can and half foreign. The hyphen is incompati- 
ble with patriotism. 

Patriotism should be an integral part of our 
every feeling at all times, for it is merely another 
name for those qualities of soul which make a 
man in peace or in war, by day or by night, think 
of his duty to his fellows, and of his duty to the 
nation through which their and his loftiest aspi- 
rations must find their fitting expression. After 
the Lusitania was sunk, Mr. Wilson stated in 
effect that such a time was not the right time 



to stir up patriotism. This statement is entirely 
incompatible with having a feeling of deep pa- 
triotism at any time. It might just as appropri- 
ately have been made by George Washington im- 
mediately after his defeat at the Brandywine, 
or by Abraham Lincoln immediately after the 
surrender of Fort Sumter; and if in either of 
these crises our leaders had acted on any such 
principle we would not now have any country at 
all. Patriotism is as much a duty in time of war 
as in time of peace, and it is most of all a duty 
in any and every great crisis. To commit folly 
or do evil, to act inconsiderately and hastily or 
wantonly and viciously, in the name of patriot- 
ism, represents not patriotism at all, but a use of 
the name to cloak an attack upon the thing. Such 
baseness or folly is wrong, at every time and on 
every occasion. But patriotism itself is not only 
in place on every occasion and at every time, but 
is peculiarly the feeling which should be stirred 
to its deepest depths at every serious crisis. The 
duty of a leader is to lead; and it is a dreadful 
thing that any man chosen to lead his fellow- 
countrymen should himself show, not merely so 
profound a lack of patriotism, but such misun- 
derstanding of patriotism, as to be willing to say 
in a great crisis what President Wilson thus said 
at the time of the sinking of the Lusitania. This 
statement, coupled with his statement made about 



the same time as to being "too proud to fight," 
furnishes the clue to the Administration's policy 
both before and since. This policy made our 
great democratic commonwealth false to its 
duties and its ideals in a tremendous world crisis, 
at the very time when, if properly led, it could 
have rendered an inestimable service to all man- 
kind, and could have placed itself on a higher 
pinnacle of worthy achievement than ever before. 
Patriotism, so far from being incompatible 
with performance of duty to other nations, is an 
indispensable prerequisite to doing one's duty 
toward other nations. Fear God; and take your 
own part ! If this nation had feared God it would 
have stood up for the Belgians and Armenians ; 
if it had been able and willing to take its own 
part there would have been no murderous assault 
on the Lusiiania, no outrages on our men and 
women in Mexico. True patriotism carries with 
it not hostility to other nations but a quickened 
sense of responsible good-will towards other na- 
tions, a good-will of acts and not merely of 
words. I stand for a nationalism of duty, to 
oneself and to others; and, therefore, for a na- 
tionalism which is a means to internationalism. 
World peace must rest on the willingness of na- 
tions with courage, cool foresight, and readiness 
for self-sacrifice to defend the fabric of interna- 
tional law. No nation can help in securing an 



organized, peaceful and justice-doing world com- 
munity until it is willing to run risks and make 
efforts in order to secure and maintain such a 

The nation that in actual practice fears God 
is the nation which does not wrong its neigh- 
bors, which does so far as possible help its 
neighbors, and which never promises what it 
cannot or will not or ought not to perform. The 
professional pacifists in and out of office who at 
peace congresses pass silly resolutions which can- 
not be, and ought not to be, lived up to, and enter 
into silly treaties which ought not to be, and can- 
not be, kept, are not serving God, but Baal. 
They are not doing anything for anybody. 1 If 
in addition these people, when the concrete case 
arises, as in Belgium or Armenia, fear concretely 

1 See the excellent little book called "Is War Diminishing?" 
by Woods and Baltzly. The authors deal, as they necessarily 
must if truthful deal, with the mischievous activities of those 
professional pacifists among whom Mr. Andrew Carnegie has 
attained an unhappy prominence : activities which in this country 
for the last five years have worked nothing but evil, and very 
serious evil, to our nation and to humanity at large, and to all 
genuine movements for the promotion of the peace of righteous- 
ness. The writers instance Mr. Nicholas Murray Butler as 
presenting in typical manner the shams and perversions of fact 
upon which the professional pacifists rely for their propaganda, 
and remark that these pacifists, "who pride themselves on having 
the superior moral point of view, openly disregard the truth," 
and ask "these professors of ethics, law and justice, these presi- 
dents of colleges, these moral educators, if morality is not neces- 
sarily bound up with truth." The pacifist movement in this 
country has not only been one of extreme folly and immorality, 
but has been bolstered by consistent and unwearied falsification 
of the facts, laudation of shallow and unprincipled demagogues, 
and condemnation of the upright public servants who fearlessly 
tell the truth. 



to denounce and antagonize the wrongdoer, they 
become not merely passive, but active agents of 
the devil. The professional pacifists who ap- 
plauded universal arbitration treaties and disar- 
mament proposals prior to the war, since the war 
have held meetings and parades in this country 
on behalf of peace, and have gone on silly mis- 
sions to Europe on behalf of peace and the 
peace they sought to impose on heroes who were 
battling against infamy was a peace conceived in 
the interest of the authors of the infamy. They 
did not dare to say that they stood only for a 
peace that should right the wrongs of Belgium. 
They did not dare to denounce the war of aggres- 
sion by Germany against Belgium. Their souls 
were too small, their timidity too great. They 
were even afraid to applaud the war waged by 
Belgium in its own defence. These pacifists have 
served morality, have shown that they feared 
God, exactly as the Pharisees did, when they 
made broad their philacteries and uttered long 
prayers in public, but did not lift a finger to 
lighten the load of the oppressed. When Mr. 
Wilson and Mr. Bryan made this nation shirk 
its duty towards Belgium, they made us false to 
all our high ideals; for they acted and caused 
this government to act in that spirit of commer- 
cial opportunism which refuses to do duty to oth- 
ers unless there is in it pecuniary profit for one- 



self. This combination of mean timidity and 
mean commercial opportunism is peculiarly odi- 
ous because those practising it have sought to 
hide it by profuse outbursts of wordy sentimen- 
tality and loud professions of attachment to im- 
possible and undesirable ideals. One of the be- 
setting sins of many of our public servants (and 
of not a few of our professional moralists, lay 
and clerical) is to cloak weakness or baseness of 
action behind insincere oratory on behalf of im- 
practical ideals. The true servant of the people 
is the man who preaches realizable ideals; and 
who then practises what he has preached. 

Moreover, even as regards the pacifists who 
genuinely desire that this nation should fear God, 
it is to be remembered that if the nation cannot 
take its own part, the fact that it fears God will 
be of no practical consequence to any one. No- 
body cares whether or not the feeling of the Chi- 
nese people is against international wrongdoing; 
for, as China is helplessly unable to take her own 
part, she is in practise even more helpless to take 
the part of any one else and to secure justice 
and mercy for any one else. The pacifists who 
are seeking to China fy the United States are 
not only seeking to bring the United States to 
ruin, but are also seeking to render it abso- 
lutely impotent to help upright and well-behaved 
nations which are oppressed by the military 



power of unscrupulous neighbors of greater 

The professional pacifists, the leaders in the 
pacifist movement in the United States, do par- 
ticular harm by giving well-meaning but unin- 
formed people who do not think deeply what 
seems to them a convincing excuse for failure 
to show courage and resolution. Those who 
preach sloth and cowardice under the high- 
sounding name of "peace" give people a word 
with which to cloak, even to themselves, their 
failure to perform unpleasant duty. For a man 
to stand up for his own rights, or especially for 
the rights of somebody else, means that he must 
have virile qualities : courage, foresight, willing- 
ness to face risk and undergo effort. It is much 
easier to be timid and lazy. The average man 
does not like to face death and endure hard- 
ship and labor. He can be roused to do so if 
a leader of the right type, a Washington or 
Lincoln, appeals to the higher qualities, includ- 
ing the stern qualities, of his soul. But a leader, 
or at least a man who holds a leader's place, 
earns praise and profit unworthily if he uses his 
gift of words to lull well-meaning men to sleep, 
if he assures them that it is their duty to do the 
easy and selfish thing, and furnishes them high- 
sounding phrases with which to cover ignoble 
failure to perform hard and disagreeable duties. 



Peace is not the end. Righteousness is the 
end. When the Saviour saw the money-changers 
in the Temple he broke the peace by driving 
them out. At that moment peace could have 
been obtained readily enough by the simple proc- 
ess of keeping quiet in the presence of wrong. 
But instead of preserving peace at the expense 
of righteousness, the Saviour armed himself 
with a scourge of cords and drove the money- 
changers from the Temple. Righteousness is 
the end, and peace a means to the end, and some- 
times it is not peace, but war which is the proper 
means to achieve the end. Righteousness should 
breed valor and strength. When it does breed 
them, it is triumphant; and when triumphant, it 
necessarily brings peace. But peace does not nec- 
essarily bring righteousness. 

As for neutrality, it is well to remember that 
it is never moral, and may be a particularly mean 
and hideous form of immorality. It is in itself 
merely unmoral; that is, neither moral nor im- 
moral; and at times it may be wise and expedi- 
ent. But it is never anything of which to be 
proud; and it may be something of which to be 
heartily ashamed. It is a wicked thing to be 
neutral between right and wrong. Impartiality 
does not mean neutrality. Impartial justice con- 
sists not in being neutral between right and 
wrong, but in finding out the right and uphold- 



ing it, wherever found, against the wrong. 
Moreover, submission to an initial wrong means 
that all protests against subsequent and lesser 
wrongs are hypocritical and ineffective. Had 
we protested, in such fashion that our protest was 
effective, against what was done in Belgium by 
Germany, and against the sinking of the Lusi- 
tania by Germany, we could have (and in such 
case we ought to have) protested against all sub- 
sequent and minor infractions of international 
law and morals, including those which interfered 
with our commerce or with any other neutral 
rights. But failure to protest against the first 
and worst offences of the strongest wrongdoer 
made it contemptible, and an act of bad faith, 
to protest against subsequent and smaller mis- 
deeds; and failure to act (not merely speak or 
write notes) when our women and children were 
murdered made protests against interference 
with American business profits both offensive 
and ludicrous. 

The pacifists have used all kinds of argu- 
ments in favor of peaceful submission to, or 
refusal to prepare against, international violence 
and wrongdoing, and among others the very an- 
cient arguments based upon the supposed teach- 
ing of the New Testament against war. In the 
first place, as I have already pointed out, this 
argument is quite incompatible with accepting 


the lesson taught by the action of the Saviour 
in driving the money-changers from the Temple ; 
not to mention, incidentally, that the duty of pre- 
paredness has rarely been put in stronger form 
than by St. Luke in the direction that "He that 
hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy 

In the next place, the plea is merely an in- 
stance of the adroit casuistry that can twist iso- 
lated teachings of the Gospels in any required 
direction. As a matter of fact, the Gospels do 
not deal with war at all. During the period 
they covered there was no war in Judea, and no 
question arising from the need of going to war. 
The precepts and teachings upon which the pa- 
cifists rely apply not to war, but to questions 
arising from or concerning individual and mob 
violence and the exercise of the internal police 
power. In so far as sincere and logical paci- 
fists are concerned, they recognize this fact. 
There are schools of pacifists who decline to 
profit by the exercise of the police power, who 
decline to protect not merely themselves, but 
those dearest to them, from any form of out- 
rage and violence. The individuals of this type 
are at least logical in their horror even of just 
war. If a man deliberately takes the view that 
he will not resent having his wife's face slapped, 
that he will not by force endeavor to save his 



daughter from outrage, and that he disapproves 
of the policeman who interferes by force to save 
a child kidnapped by a black-hander, or a girl 
run off by a white-slaver, then he is logical in 
objecting to war. Of course, to my mind, he 
occupies an unspeakably base and loathsome po- 
sition, and is not fit to cumber the world in 
which, as a matter of fact, he exists at all only 
because he is protected by the maintenance by 
others of the very principle which he himself re- 
pudiates and declines to share. 

Such a position I hold to be as profoundly im- 
moral as it is profoundly unpatriotic. But, at 
least, the men holding it are trying logically to 
apply the principles which they profess to fol- 
low. Messrs. Bryan, Jordan, Ford, and the other 
professional pacifists, however, are either in- 
sincere in their denunciation of war, or else must 
announce that the same principle which makes 
them denounce a just war entered into for the 
sake of the welfare of the nation as a whole, 
also makes them denounce the man who, by force, 
endeavors to protect his daughter against in- 
famy, or the woman who opposes her feeble 
strength to the brutality of the kidnapper of her 
child. Either these gentlemen, as regards their 
own families, approve of tame submission to 
kidnapping and white slavery, and disapprove of 
suppression of kidnapping and white slavery by 



the police, or else they are either thoroughly 
unintelligent or else thoroughly dishonest in their 
denunciation of national preparedness and of 
readiness to enter into just war on behalf either 
of ourselves or of others. 

Let us beware of confusing names with things. 
The fuglemen of President Wilson have kept 
praising him because, forsooth, he has "kept us 
out of war." Every now and then one of them 
reverses his praise, and says that in any event 
President Wilson could not have gone to war, 
because war can only be declared by Congress. 
But as a matter of fact, President Wilson has 
gone to war, both with Hayti and with Mexico. 

This is a matter of deeds, not of words. When 
our armed forces attack the chief seaport city 
of a foreign country, as we did in the case both 
of Mexico and of Hayti, and take it by violence, 
after conflicts in which scores of our own men 
and either scores or hundreds of our opponents 
are killed and wounded, the act is one of war. 
It may be successful war like that which Mr. Wil- 
son nerved himself to wage with tiny Hayti 
for Mr. Wilson was not afraid of Hayti. It may 
be utterly ineffective war, as in the case of Mr. 
Wilson's little war with Mexico. But both were 
wars; and each was waged without any Con- 
gressional action whatever. Mr. Wilson sent the 
fleet down to Vera Cruz, and took it in order to 



get a salute for the flag. The men wearing the 
United States uniform, who carried out his com- 
mand, suffered a considerable loss of life and 
inflicted a greater loss of life. He then brought 
our forces away without achieving the object 
he had in view. His little war was an ignoble 
war, and he was beaten in it. But it was a war. 

Some of his defenders now say that, although 
defeated in the avowed purpose of the war, he 
succeeded as regards the unavowed purpose, 
which was to drive out Huerta in the interests 
of Villa. This is, of course, a confession that 
their statements on behalf of Mr. Wilson are 
untrue, that he has not kept the country at peace, 
but has put it into a war, not to serve any public 
purpose, but to gratify his personal feelings. It 
is, of course, a statement absolutely incompati- 
ble with Mr. Wilson's own claim that he did not 
intervene in Mexico. Therefore, these admirers 
of Mr. Wilson come to his defence by vociferat- 
ing what he asserts to be contrary to the truth. 

As a matter of fact, in this case they are cor- 
rect. Mr. Wilson has more than once interfered 
to use his own scholarly and elegant phrase- 
ology, "butted in" by making war in Mexico. 
He never did it, however, to secure justice for 
Americans or other foreigners. He never did 
it to secure the triumph of justice and peace 
among the Mexicans themselves. He merely did 


it in the interest of some bandit chief, whom at 
the moment he liked, in order to harm some other 
bandit chief whom at the moment he disliked. 
Under such circumstances his methods of action, 
and his defence of his action, are worthy of a 
Byzantine logothete but not of an American 
statesman who is true to the traditions of Wash- 
ington and Lincoln, and an heir to the valor 
shown by the soldiers of Grant and of Lee. 

Mr. Wilson has been President when the 
urgent need of the nation was for action. He 
has met the need purely by elocution. A friend, 
writing to me last Christmas Eve, remarked that 
he had just found in Cymbeline "in anticipation 
of the gentleman in the White House": 

"Prithee have done, 

And do not play in wench-like words with that 
Which is so serious." 

Peace is not a question of names. It is a ques- 
tion of facts. If murders occur in a city, and 
if the police force is so incompetent that no 
record is made of them officially, that does not 
interfere with the fact that murders have been 
committed and that life is unsafe. In just the 
same way, if lives are taken by violence between 
nations, it is not of the slightest consequence 
whether those responsible for the government 
of the nation whose citizens have lost their lives 



do or do not assert that the nation is at peace. 
During the last three years we have been techni- 
cally at peace. But during those three years 
more of our citizens have been killed by Mexi- 
cans, Germans, Austrians and Haytians than 
were killed during the entire Spanish War. It 
is true that the American citizens killed during 
the past three years have been mostly non-com- 
batants, including women and children, although 
many men wearing the national uniform have 
also been killed, some of them on American soil. 
But the fact that women and children are killed 
instead of full-grown men in uniform surely in- 
creases rather than diminishes the horror. We 
have had a great many more citizens killed dur- 
ing this time of alleged peace, and thanks to the 
activities of the emissaries of foreign govern- 
ments with the torch and the bomb on our own 
soil, we have had much more American property 
destroyed, than was the case during the open 
war with Spain ; and whereas, thanks to the ab- 
ject quality of Mr. Wilson's tameness, no benefit 
whatever, to us or to mankind at larg*e, has 
come from this loss of life and destruction of 
property during the last three years, the short 
war with Spain brought incalculable benefits to 
Cuba, Porto Rico, the Philippines, not to speak 
of ourselves. 

On February I2th it will be a year since the 


bined unworthy submission to wrongs against 
ourselves, with selfish refusal to keep our word 
and do right by others. Under the sixth article 
of the Constitution treaties are "the Supreme law 
of the land." The Hague Conventions were 
treaties of this kind. They included a guaranty 
from Germany that she would not violate the 
territory of neutral nations (including the 
territory of Belgium) and a guaranty by Bel- 
gium that if an attempt was made to violate 
her territory she would fight to prevent the vio- 
lation. Germany broke her solemn promise to 
us, and offended against the Supreme law of 
our land. Belgium kept her solemn promise made 
by her to us, to Germany, to France, Russia and 
England. We shirked our duty by failing to take 
any action, even by protest, against the wrong- 
doer and on behalf of the wronged, by permitting 
this violation of our law, of the law which we 
guaranteed, of the "supreme law of the land," 
and by announcing through our President that 
we would be "neutral in thought as well as in 
deed" between the oppressor and the oppressed. 
We have been equally signal in our remiss- 
ness to prepare for our own defence. It is our 
highest duty thus to prepare, and in manful fash- 
ion to pay the cost of preparation. Seven years 
ago we were relatively to the rest of the world 
far better prepared than ever before in our his- 



tory. Our navy was in combined size and ef- 
ficiency the second in the world. The Philip- 
pines had been pacified, Mexico was orderly and 
peaceful, and the Hague Conventions, if actively 
enforced and treated as binding by peaceful and 
law-abiding nations, would have regulated the 
conduct of war, circumscribed its limits, and 
minimized the chance of its occurrence. Under 
such conditions our regular army was of suf- 
ficient size (provided the work of improving its 
efficiency was steadily continued, as had been the 
case during the preceding seven years) for the 
navy was our first and principal line of defence. 
Although as President I had called the attention 
of Congress and of the people to the Swiss sys- 
tem of universal service as a model for us as well 
as other democracies, there did not at that time 
seem any sufficient justification for military 
alarm. But what has happened during the last 
year and a half has forced all reasonably far- 
sighted men to understand that we are living in 
a new world. We have let our navy deteriorate 
to a degree both shameful and alarming. We 
have shown by our own conduct when the Hague 
Conventions were violated that all such treaties 
are utterly worthless, as offering even the small- 
est safeguard against aggression. Above all, the 
immense efficiency, the utter ruthlessness, and 
the gigantic scale of the present military opera- 



bined unworthy submission to wrongs against 
ourselves, with selfish refusal to keep our word 
and do right by others. Under the sixth article 
of the Constitution treaties are "the Supreme law 
of the land." The Hague Conventions were 
treaties of this kind. They included a guaranty 
from Germany that she would not violate the 
territory of neutral nations (including the 
territory of Belgium) and a guaranty by Bel- 
gium that if an attempt was made to violate 
her territory she would fight to prevent the vio- 
lation. Germany broke her solemn promise to 
us, and offended against the Supreme law of 
our land. Belgium kept her solemn promise made 
by her to us, to Germany, to France, Russia and 
England. We shirked our duty by failing to take 
any action, even by protest, against the wrong- 
doer and on behalf of the wronged, by permitting 
this violation of our law, of the law which we 
guaranteed, of the "supreme law of the land/' 
and by announcing through our President that 
we would be "neutral in thought as well as in 
deed" between the oppressor and the oppressed. 
We have been equally signal in our remiss- 
ness to prepare for our own defence. It is our 
highest duty thus to prepare, and in manful fash- 
ion to pay the cost of preparation. Seven years 
ago we were relatively to the rest of the world 
far better prepared than ever before in our his- 



tory. Our navy was in combined size and ef- 
ficiency the second in the world. The Philip- 
pines had been pacified, Mexico was orderly and 
peaceful, and the Hague Conventions, if actively 
enforced and treated as binding by peaceful and 
law-abiding nations, would have regulated the 
conduct of war, circumscribed its limits, and 
minimized the chance of its occurrence. Under 
such conditions our regular army was of suf- 
ficient size (provided the work of improving its 
efficiency was steadily continued, as had been the 
case during the preceding seven years) for the 
navy was our first and principal line of defence. 
Although as President I had called the attention 
of Congress and of the people to the Swiss sys- 
tem of universal service as a model for us as well 
as other democracies, there did not at that time 
seem any sufficient justification for military 
alarm. But what has happened during the last 
year and a half has forced all reasonably far- 
sighted men to understand that we are living in 
a new world. We have let our navy deteriorate 
to a degree both shameful and alarming. We 
have shown by our own conduct when the Hague 
Conventions were violated that all such treaties 
are utterly worthless, as offering even the small- 
est safeguard against aggression. Above all, the 
immense efficiency, the utter ruthlessness, and 
the gigantic scale of the present military opera- 


tions show that we need military preparedness 
on a scale never hitherto even dreamed of by 
any American statesman. 

Eighteen months have gone by since the great 
war broke out. It needed no prescience, no re- 
markable statesmanship or gift of forecasting 
the future, to see that, when such mighty forces 
were unloosed and when it had been shown that 
all treaties and other methods hitherto relied 
upon for national protection and for mitigating 
the horrors and circumscribing the area of war 
were literally "scraps of paper," it had become 
a vital necessity that we should instantly and 
on a great and adequate scale prepare for our 
own defence. Our men, women and children 
not in isolated cases, but in scores and hundreds 
of cases have been murdered by Germany and 
Mexico; and we have tamely submitted to 
wrongs from Germany and Mexico of a kind to 
which no nation can submit without impairing 
its own self-respect and incurring the contempt 
of the rest of mankind. Yet during these eigh- 
teen months not one thing has been done. The 
President in his Message to Congress four 
months after the beginning of the war actually 
took ground against such preparedness. At this 
moment we are no stronger by one soldier or 
one sailor, by one cannon or by one ship, because 
of anything that has been done during these 



eighteen months in view of the frightful world 
calamity that has befallen. At last the popular 
feeling has grown to be such that the President 
has paid to it the tribute of advocating an inef- 
ficient and belated half -measure of preparedness. 
But even so, not one thing has yet been done. 
Everything is still in the future, and there is 
not the slightest sign that the urgency of the case 
has been recognized. Nine-tenths of wisdom is 
being wise in time. Never in the country's his- 
tory has there been a more stupendous instance 
of folly than this crowning folly of waiting eigh- 
teen months after the elemental crash of nations 
took place before even making a start in an ef- 
fort and an utterly inefficient and insufficient 
effort for some kind of preparation to ward off 
disaster in the future. 

If President Wilson had shown the disinter- 
ested patriotism, courage and foresight de- 
manded by this stupendous crisis I would have 
supported him with hearty enthusiasm. But his 
action, or rather inaction, has been such that it 
has become a matter of high patriotic duty to 
oppose him. No man can support Mr. Wilson 
without being false to the ideals of national duty 
and international humanity. No one can support 
Mr. Wilson without opposing the larger Ameri- 
canism, the true Americanism. No man can 
support Mr. Wilson and at the same time be 



really in favor of thoroughgoing preparedness 
against war. No man can support Mr. Wilson 
without at the same time supporting a policy of 
criminal inefficiency as regards the United States 
navy, of shortsighted inadequacy as regards the 
army, of abandonment of the duty owed by the 
United States to weak and well-behaved nations, 
and of failure to insist on our just rights when 
we are ourselves maltreated by powerful and un- 
scrupulous nations. 

It has been a matter of sincere regret to me 
to part company with so many German friends 
who believe that I have been unkind to Germany. 
It has also been a matter of sincere grief to me 
to find that my position has been misunderstood 
and misrepresented and resented by many up- 
right fellow-citizens to whom in the past I have 
been devoted, but who have let their loyalty to 
Germany, the land from which they themselves 
or their forefathers came, blind them to their 
loyalty to the United States and their duty to hu- 
manity at large. I wish explicitly and emphati- 
cally to state that I do not believe that this is 
the attitude of any but a minority of American 
citizens of German birth or descent. Among my 
stanchest friends are many men of German 
blood, who are American citizens and nothing 
else. As I have elsewhere said, I could name 
an entire administration from the President 



down through every member of the Cabinet, 
every man of whom would be of German blood, 
but an American and nothing else; an adminis- 
tration which I and all those like me could follow 
with absolute confidence in dealing with this or 
any similar crisis. 

The German element has contributed much 
to our national life, and can yet do much more 
in music, in literature, in art, in sound construc- 
tive citizenship. In the greatest of our national 
crises, the Civil War, a larger percentage of our 
citizens of recent German origin, than of our 
citizens of old revolutionary stock, proved loyal 
to the great ideals of union and of liberty. I am 
myself partly of German blood. I believe that 
this country has more to learn from Ger- 
many than from any other nation and this as 
regards fealty to non-utilitarian ideals, no less 
than as regards the essentials of social and in- 
dustrial efficiency, of that species of socialized 
governmental action which is absolutely neces- 
sary for individual protection and general well- 
being under the conditions of modern industrial- 
ism. But in this country we must all stand to- 
gether absolutely without regard to our several 
lines of descent, as Americans and nothing else; 
and, above all, we must do this as regards moral 
issues. The great issues with which we must 
now deal are moral even more than material; 


and on these issues every good American should 
be with us, without the slightest regard to the 
land from which his forefathers came. 

As regards the German- Americans who assail 
me in this contest because they are really mere 
transported Germans, hostile to this country and 
to human rights, I feel not sorrow, but stern 
disapproval. I am not interested in their attitude 
toward me; but I am greatly interested in their 
attitude toward this nation. I am standing for 
the larger Americanism, for true Americanism; 
and as regards my attitude in this matter, I do 
not ask as a favor, but challenge as a right, 
the support of all good American citizens, no 
matter where born, and no matter of what creed 
or national origin. I do not in the least desire 
any support for or approval of me personally; 
but I do most emphatically demand such support 
and approval for the doctrines of the larger 
Americanism which I advocate. 

When some fourteen months ago I published 
under the title of "America and the World War," 
a little volume containing what I had publicly 
said and urged during the first months of the 
war, I took substantially the ground that I now 
take. But there is infinitely more reason for 
taking such ground now. 

At that time Germany had sinned against civi- 
lization by her conduct toward Belgium and her 


method of carrying on the war, and I held it to 
be our duty in accordance with our solemn cove- 
nant to take whatever action was necessary in 
order to show that our nation stood for the right 
and against the wrong, even when the wrong was 
triumphant. But our duty is far stronger now. 
For many months Germany has waged war 
against us, the war being conducted by openly 
authorized agents of Germany on the high seas 
and within our land against our munition plants 
by men who have been shown to be the direct 
or indirect agents of Germany and whom 
as matter of fact no human being in his senses 
denies to be such. What I say of Germany ap- 
plies in less degree to Austria, which has be- 
come the instrument of Germany's ambition and 
her agent in wrongdoing. 1 

1 In a recent excellent pamphlet Mr. Gustav Bissing, who, like 
myself, is an American of non- English blood (I believe mainly 
German blood), speaks of the activities of the hyphenated pro- 
fessional German-Americans and Austrian-Americans in part 
as follows : "Are we really a nation, a people, a fused product 
of the melting-pot, or are we, after all, a polyglot conglomerate 
of unfused nationalities? . . . What we need is a leader, one 
who walks ahead, some one with prescience, imagination and 
courage. The chord which is to reverberate in American ears 
throughout the land must be struck by a master-musician not 
afraid of the foreign vote. 'Gott erhalte Franz der Kaiser' and 
'Die Wacht am Rhein' are both inspirating national anthems. 
But just now I am longing for the simple strains of simon-pure 
'Yankee Doodle.' " One of the best Americans I know a man 
both of whose parents were born in Germany writes me from 
South America as follows: "We of the U. S. are considered 
here a more or less spiritless, invertebrate sort of humanity, 
because of the insults we have accepted from Germany, and 
our inaction in Mexico. At the present time it is far safer and 
more pleasant for an American to remain home. No man's life 


I preach antipathy to no nation. I feel not 
merely respect but admiration for the German 
people. I regard their efficiency and their de- 
voted patriotism and steady endurance as 
fraught with significant lessons to us. I believe 
that they have permitted themselves to be utterly 
misled, and have permitted their government to 
lead them in the present war into a course of 
conduct which, if persevered in, would make 
them the permanent enemy of all the free and 
liberty-loving nations of mankind and of civili- 
zation itself. But I believe that sooner or later 
they will recover their senses and make their 
government go right. I shall continue to cherish 
the friendliest feelings toward the Germans in- 
dividually, and for Germany collectively as soon 
as Germany collectively comes to her senses. No 
nation is always right, and very few nations are 
always wrong. It is our duty to judge each 
nation by its conduct in the given crisis which 
must at the moment be faced. Since this country 
became a nation, there have been occasions when 
it has so acted as to deserve the condemnation of 

is safe in the hands of a man like Wilson ! If the people of the 
U. S. A. don't overwhelmingly drive the peace-at-any-price party 
out of office at the next election, they will lose practically all 
standing in foreign countries, and will have to face the discon- 
tent and humiliation of their own most high-minded citizens. 
We do not need more wealth in the U. S. A. to-day; our crying 
need is manhood ! The American people must awake to a 
realization of duty and put a stop to the abuses which now 
threaten our honor and our national integrity." 



mankind and as regards slavery its action was 
persevered in for many years. During the same 
period England, France, and Russia have each 
of them and all of them at one time or another 
so behaved as to merit from us condemnation 
and antagonism; and, at certain periods in our 
history, during the Napoleonic wars, for instance, 
and during our own Civil War, the attitude of 
the ruling classes in both France and England 
was unfriendly to our country. In 1898 Ger- 
many was hostile to us, and all the nations of 
Continental Europe followed suit, whereas Eng- 
land, and England alone, stood by us. In the 
Revolution France was our only real friend. 
During the time of the Civil War Russia was the 
only European nation which showed us any sym- 
pathy whatever. 

When as a nation we displayed a purpose to 
champion international piracy in the interest of 
slavery we deserved to be condemned. But in the 
end we did well, and proved our worth by our en- 
deavor, and when we championed orderly free- 
dom in Cuba, the Philippines, and Panama, we 
deserved to be praised. In 1878 it was right to 
champion Russia and Bulgaria against Turkey 
and England. For exactly the same reasons we 
ought now to champion Russia and England and 
Servia against Turkey and Bulgaria. A century 
ago the sympathies of humanity ought to have 



been with the Germany of Koerner and Andreas 
Hofer against Napoleonic France; and to-day 
they ought to be with the Belgian and French 
patriots against the Germany of the Hohenzol- 
lerns. To oppose England now because in 1776 
we fought England is as foolish and wicked as 
it would be now to oppose Germany because in 
that same Revolutionary War masses of German 
mercenaries fought against us. I have certainly 
never hesitated, and at this moment am not hesi- 
tating, to condemn my own country and my own 
countrymen when it and they are wrong. I 
would just as unhesitatingly condemn England, 
France, or Russia if any one of them should in 
the future behave as Germany is now behaving. 
I shall stand by Germany in the future on any 
occasion when its conduct permits me so to do. 
We must not be vindictive, or prone to remember 
injuries; we need forgiveness, and we must be 
ready to grant forgiveness. When an injury is 
past and is atoned for, it would be wicked to 
hold it in mind. We must do justice as the facts 
at the moment demand. 

Abraham Lincoln, with his far-seeing vision 
and his shrewd, homely common sense, set forth 
the doctrine which is right both as regards in- 
dividuals and as regards nations when he said: 
"Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand 
with him while he is right and part with him 



when he goes wrong. To desert such ground 
because of any company is to be less than a man, 
less than an American." As things actually are 
at this moment, it is Germany which has offended 
against civilization and humanity some of the 
offences, of a very grave kind, being at our own 
expense. It is the Allies who are dedicated to 
the cause and are fighting for the principles set 
forth as fundamental in the speech of Abraham 
Lincoln at Gettysburg. It is they who have 
highly resolved that their dead shall not have 
died in vain, and that government of the people, 
by the people, and for the people shall not perish 
from the face of the earth. And we have stood 
aside and, as a nation, have not ventured even 
to say one word, far less to take any action, for 
the right or against the wrong. 

To those persons who fifty years ago cried for 
peace without regard to justice or righteousness, 
for the peace of cowardice, Abraham Lincoln an- 
swered in words that apply to-day. These words 
appropriately answer the sinister or silly crea- 
tures including especially the silly or sinister 
Americans who now likewise demand a peace 
acceptable only to the fool, the weakling, and the 
craven a peace that would consecrate triumph- 
ant wrong and leave right bound and helpless. 
Said Lincoln, "The issue before us is distinct, 
simple, and inflexible. It is an issue which can 



only be tried by war and settled by victory. The 
war will cease on the part of this government 
whenever it shall have ceased on the part of those 
who began it. ... We accepted war rather than 
let the nation perish. With malice towards none, 
with charity for all, with firmness in the right 
as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on 
to finish the work we are in, and to do all which 
may achieve a just and lasting peace among all 

Surely, with the barest change of a few words, 
all that Lincoln said applies now to the war the 
Allies are waging on behalf of orderly liberty 
and self-government for the peoples of mankind. 
They have accepted war rather than let the free 
nations of Europe perish. They must strive on 
to finish the work they are in, and to achieve a 
just and lasting peace which shall redress wrong 
and secure the liberties of the nations which have 
been assailed. 

We Americans must pay to the great truths 
set forth by Lincoln a loyalty of the heart and 
not of the lips only. In this crisis I hold that we 
have signally failed in our duty to Belgium and 
Armenia, and in our duty to ourselves. In this 
crisis I hold that the Allies are standing for the 
principles to which Abraham Lincoln said this 
country was dedicated; and the rulers of Ger- 
many have, in practical fashion, shown this to 



be the case by conducting a campaign against 
Americans on the ocean, which has resulted in 
the wholesale murder of American men, women, 
and children, and by conducting within our own 
borders a campaign of the bomb and the torch 
against American industries. They have car- 
ried on war against our people; for wholesale 
and repeated killing is war even though the 
killing takes the shape of assassination of non- 
combatants, instead of battle against armed men. 

It is a curious commentary on the folly of the 
professional pacifists among my fellow-country- 
men that they should applaud a "peace" to be 
obtained by conceding triumph to these wrong- 
doers. It is a no less curious commentary on 
the attitude of the rulers of Germany that at 
the moment when they are forcing the Belgian 
people to aid in the manufacture of materials 
of war to be used against their own countrymen, 
they are also protesting against the United States 
manufacturing such materials for the use of 
those who are seeking to free Belgium from the 
dreadful brutality of which it has been the victim. 

It is always hard to make a democracy pre- 
pare in advance against dangers which only the 
farsighted see to be imminent. Even in France 
there were wellr-meaning men, who but a few 
years ago did not realize the danger that hung 
over their land, and who then strove against ade- 



quate preparedness. In England, which was by 
no means in the same danger as France, there 
were far more of these men just as there are 
far more of them in our own country than in 
England. Almost all these men, both in France 
and in England, are now doing everything in 
their power to atone for the error they formerly 
committed, an error for which they and their 
fellow countrymen have paid a bitter price of 
blood and tears. In our land, however, the men 
of this stamp have not learned these lessons, 
and with evil folly are endeavoring to plunge 
the nation into an abyss of disaster by preventing 
it from so preparing as to remove the chance of 
disaster. France has learned her lesson in the 
hard school of invasion and necessity; England 
has been slower to learn, because the war was 
not in her home territory; and our own politi- 
cians, and to a lamentably large degree our own 
people, are fatuously unable to profit by what 
has happened, because they lack the power to 
visualize either the present woe of others or the 
future danger to themselves. 

France has shown a heroism and a loftiness 
of soul worthy of Joan of Arc herself. She was 
better prepared than either of her allies, per- 
haps because the danger to her was more im- 
minent and more terrible, and therefore more 
readily understood; and since the first month of 



the war she has done everything that it was in 
human power to do. The unity, the quiet reso- 
lution, the spirit of self-sacrifice among her peo- 
ple soldiers and civilians, men and women are 
of a noble type. The soul of France, at this mo- 
ment, seems purified of all dross; it burns like 
the clear flame of fire on a sacred tripod. French- 
men are not only a gallant but a generous race; 
and France realizes that England and Russia 
are now both bearing their share of the burden 
in the same spirit that France herself has shown. 

Russia's sufferings have been sore, but it is 
not possible to overestimate Russia's tremendous 
tenacity of purpose and power of endurance. 
Russia is mighty, and her future looms so vast 
that it is hardly possible to overstate it. The 
Russian people feel this to be their war. Rus- 
sia's part in the world is great, and will be 
greater ; it is well that she should stand valiantly 
and stubbornly for her own rights ; and as a firm 
and ardent friend of the Russian people may I 
add that Russia will stand for her rights all the 
more effectively when she also stands for the 
rights of Finn and Pole and Jew; when she 
learns the lesson that we Americans must also 
learn to grant every man his full rights, and 
to exact from each man the full performance of 
his duty. 

The English navy was mobilized with a ra- 


pidity and efficiency as great as that of the Ger- 
man army. It has driven every warship, except 
an occasional submarine, and every merchant- 
ship of Germany off the seas, and has kept the 
ocean as a highway of life not only for England, 
but for France, and largely also for Russia. In 
all history there has been no such gigantic and 
successful naval feat accomplished as that which 
the seamen and shipwrights of England have to 
their credit during the last eighteen months. It 
was not originally expected that England would 
have to do much on the continent; and although 
her wisest sons emphatically desired that she 
should be ready to do more, yet this desire repre- 
sented only a recognition of the duty owed by 
England to herself. To her Allies she has more 
than kept the promise she has made. She has 
given Russia the financial assistance that none 
but she could give; her money effort has been 
unparalleled in all previous history. Eighteen 
months ago no Frenchman would have expected 
that in the event of war England would do more 
than put a couple of hundred thousand men in 
France. She has already put in a million, and 
is training and arming more than double that 
number. Her soldiers have done their duty 
fearlessly and well; they have won high honor 
on the fields of horror and glory; they have 
shown the same gallantry and stubborn valor 



that have been so evident in the armies of France 
and Russia. Her women are working with 
all the steadfast courage and self-sacrifice that 
the women of France have shown. Her men 
from every class have thronged into the army. 
Her fisher folk, and her seafarers generally, have 
come forward in such numbers that her fleet is 
nearly double as strong as it was at the outset 
of the war. Her mines and war factories have 
steadily enlarged their output, and it is now 
enormous, although many of the factories had 
literally to build from the ground up, and the 
very plant itself had to be created. Coal, food, 
guns, munitions, are being supplied with sus- 
tained energy. From across the sea the free 
Commonwealths of Canada, Australia, New Zea- 
land, and South Africa, and the Indian Empire, 
have responded with splendid loyalty, and have 
sent their sons from the ends of the earth to 
do battle for liberty and civilization. Of Can- 
ada I can speak from personal knowledge. Can- 
ada has faced the time that tries men's souls, 
and with gallant heroism she has risen level to 
the time's need. Mighty days have come to her, 
and she has been equal to the mighty days. 
Greatness comes only through labor and cour- 
age, through the iron willingness to face sorrow 
and death, the tears of women and the blood of 
men, if only thereby it is possible to serve a lofty 



ideal. Canada has won that honorable place 
among the nations of the past and the present 
which can only come to the people whose sons 
are willing and able to dare and do and die at 
need. The spirit shown by her sister-common- 
wealths is the same. High of heart and un- 
daunted of soul the men and women of the 
British Islands and of the whole British Empire 
now front the crisis that is upon them. 

Having said all this, let me point out, purely 
for the instruction of our own people, that, ex- 
cepting always as regards her navy, England 
has been much less effective than she should have 
been in the use of her strength during these first 
eighteen months of war. This is because she had 
not prepared in advance, because she had not ac- 
cepted the advice of Lord Roberts. If all her 
sons had been trained under a system of uni- 
versal service, and if it had been clearly under- 
stood that in war time neither undue profit-mak- 
ing by capitalists nor striking by workingmen 
would be tolerated for universal service means 
that each man is to serve the nation, and not him- 
self, in whatever way is necessary there would 
have been no invasion of Belgium, and no long- 
drawn and disastrous war. Nine-tenths of wis- 
dom consists in being wise in time! Universal 
training in time of peace may avert war, and 
if war comes will certainly avert incalculable 



waste and extravagance and bloodshed and pos- 
sible ultimate failure. Let us of the United 
States learn the lesson. Let us inaugurate a sys- 
tem of obligatory universal military training, and 
instill into our sons the spirit of intense and ex- 
clusive loyalty to the United States. Let ours 
be true Americanism, the greater Americanism, 
and let us tolerate no other. Let us prepare our- 
selves for justice and efficiency within our own 
border during peace, for justice in international 
relations, and for efficiency in war. Only thus 
shall we have the peace worth having. 

Let this nation fear God and take its own part. 
Let it scorn to do wrong to great or small. Let 
it exercise patience and charity toward all other 
peoples, and yet at whatever cost unflinchingly 
stand for the right when the right is menaced 
by the might which backs wrong. Let it further- 
more remember that the only way in which suc- 
cessfully to oppose wrong which is backed by 
might is to put over against it right which is 
backed by might. Wanton or unjust war is an 
abhorrent evil. But there are even worse evils. 
Until, as a nation, we learn to put honor and 
duty above safety, and to encounter any hazard 
with stern joy rather than fail in our obliga- 
tions to ourselves and others, it is mere folly 
to talk of entering into leagues for world peace 
or into any other movements of like character. 



The only kind of peace worth having is the peace 
of righteousness and justice; the only nation that 
can serve other nations is the strong and valiant 
nation; and the only great international policies 
worth considering are those whose upholders be- 
lieve in them strongly enough to fight for them. 
The Monroe Doctrine is as strong as the United 
States navy, and no stronger. A nation is ut- 
terly contemptible if it will not fight in its own 
defence. A nation is not wholly admirable un- 
less in time of stress it will go to war for a great 
ideal wholly unconnected with its immediate ma- 
terial interest. 

Let us prepare not merely in military matters, 
but in our social and industrial life. There can 
be no sound relationship toward other nations 
unless there is also sound relationship among our 
own citizens within our own ranks. Let us in- 
sist on the thorough Americanization of the 
newcomers to our shores, and let us also insist 
on the thorough Americanization of ourselves. 
Let us encourage the fullest industrial activity, 
and give the amplest industrial reward to those 
whose activities are most important for securing 
industrial success, and at the same time let us 
see that justice is done and wisdom shown in 
securing the welfare of every man, woman, and 
child within our borders. Finally, let us remem- 
ber that we can do nothing to help other peo- 



pies, and nothing permanently to secure material 
well-being and social justice within our own bor- 
ders, unless we feel with all our hearts devotion 
to this country, unless we are Americans and 
nothing else, and unless in time of peace by 
universal military training, by insistence upon 
the obligations of every man and every woman 
to serve the commonwealth both in peace and 
war, and, above all, by a high and fine prepared- 
ness of soul and spirit, we fit ourselves to hold 
our own against all possible aggression from 

We are the citizens of a mighty Republic con- 
secrated to the service of God above, through 
the service of man on this earth. We are the 
heirs of a great heritage bequeathed to us by 
statesmen who saw with the eyes of the seer and 
the prophet. We must not prove false to the 
memories of the nation's past. We must not 
prove false to the fathers from whose loins we 
sprang, and to their fathers, the stern men who 
dared greatly and risked all things that freedom 
should hold aloft an undimmed torch in this wide 
land. They held their worldly well-being as dust 
in the balance when weighed against their sense 
of high duty, their fealty to lofty ideals. Let us 
show ourselves worthy to be their sons. Let us 
care, as is right, for the things of the body; but 
let us show that we care even more for the things 


of the soul. Stout of heart, and pledged to the 
valor of righteousness, let us stand four-square 
to the winds of destiny, from whatever corner of 
the world they blow. Let us keep untarnished, 
unstained, the honor of the flag our fathers 
bore aloft in the teeth of the wildest storm, the 
flag that shall float above the solid files of a 
united people, a people sworn to the great cause 
of liberty and of justice, for themselves, and for 
all the sons and daughters of men. 



IN December last I was asked to address the 
American Sociological Congress on "the ef- 
fect of war and militarism on social values." In 
sending my answer I pointed out that infinitely 
the most important fact to remember in connec- 
tion with the subject in question is that if an un- 
scrupulous, warlike, and militaristic nation is not 
held in check by the warlike ability of a neigh- 
boring non-militaristic and well-behaved nation, 
then the latter will be spared the necessity of 
dealing with its own "moral and social values" 
because it won't be allowed to deal with anything. 
Until this fact is thoroughly recognized, and the 
duty of national preparedness by justice-loving 
nations explicitly acknowledged, there is very 
little use of solemnly debating such questions as 
the one which the sociological congress assigned 
me which, in detail, was "How war and militar- 
ism affect such social values as the sense of the 
preciousness of human life; care for child wel- 
fare; the conservation of human resources; up- 



per-class concern for the lot of the masses; in- 
terest in popular education ; appreciation of truth- 
telling and truth-printing; respect for personality 
and regard for personal rights." It seems to me 
positively comic to fail to appreciate, with the ex- 
ample of Belgium before our eyes, that the real 
question which modern peace-loving nations have 
to face is not how the militaristic or warlike 
spirit within their own borders will affect these 
"values," but how failure on their part to be able 
to resist the militarism of an unscrupulous neigh- 
bor will affect them. Belgium had a very keen 
sense of the "preciousness of human life" and 
of "the need for the care of child welfare and 
the conservation of human resources," and there 
was much "concern" by the Belgian "upper 
classes for the lot of the masses," great "interest 
in popular education and appreciation of truth- 
telling and truth-printing and a high respect for 
personality and regard for personal rights." But 
all these "social values" existed in Belgium only 
up to the end of July, 1914. Not a vestige of 
them remained in 1915. To discuss them as re- 
gards present-day Belgium is sheer prattle, sim- 
ply because on August 4, 1914, Belgium had not 
prepared her military strength so that she could 
put on her frontiers at least half a million thor- 
oughly armed and trained men of fighting spirit. 
In similar fashion the question of the internal 



reformation of China at this moment is wholly 
secondary to the question whether any China 
will remain to be reformed internally. A Chi- 
nese gentleman wrote me the other day that he 
had formerly been absorbed in plans for bring- 
ing China abreast of the modern movement, but 
that the events of the past year had shown him 
that what he really ought to be absorbed in was 
the question whether or not China would be able 
by military preparation to save itself from the 
fate of Korea. Korean "social values" now have 
to be studied exclusively through a Japanese me- 
dium. At this moment the Armenians, who for 
some centuries have sedulously avoided milita- 
rism and war, and have practically applied ad- 
vanced pacifist principles, are suffering a fate, 
if possible, worse than that of the Belgians; and 
they are so suffering precisely and exactly be- 
cause they have been pacificists whereas their 
neighbors, the Turks, have not been pacifists 
but militarists. They haven't the vestige of a 
"social value" left, to be "affected" by militarism 
or by anything else. 

In the thirteenth century Persia had become a 
highly civilized nation, with a cultivated class of 
literary men and philosophers, with universities, 
and with great mercantile interests. These lit- 
erary men and merchants took toward the reali- 
ties of war much the same attitude that is taken 



in our own country by gentlemen of the stamp 
of Messrs. David Starr Jordan and Henry Ford. 
Unfortunately for these predecessors of the mod- 
ern pacifists, they were within striking distance 
of Genghis Khan and his Mongols; and, as of 
course invariably happens in such a case, when 
the onrush came, the pacifists' theories were 
worth just about what a tissue-paper barrier 
would amount to against a tidal wave. Russia 
at that time was slowly struggling upward 
toward civilization. She had become Christian. 
She was developing industry, and she was strug- 
gling toward individual freedom. In other 
words, she was in halting fashion developing the 
"social values" of which the foregoing extract 
speaks. But she had not developed military ef- 
ficiency ; she had not developed efficiency in war. 
The Mongols overwhelmed her as fire over- 
whelms stubble. For two centuries the Russians 
were trodden under foot by an alien dominion 
so ruthless, so brutal, that when they finally 
shook it off, all popular freedom had been lost 
and the soul of the nation seared by torment and 
degradation; and to this day the scars remain 
on the national life and character. The chief 
difficulties against which Russia has had to 
struggle in modern times are due ultimately to 
the one all-essential fact that in the early part 
of the thirteenth century she had not developed 



the warlike strength to enable her to hold her 
own against a militaristic neighbor. The Rus- 
sian Jew of to-day is oppressed by the Russian 
Christian because that Christian's ancestor in 
the thirteenth century had not learned efficiency 
in war. 

There are well-meaning people, utterly incap- 
able of learning any lesson taught by history, 
utterly incapable even of understanding aright 
what has gone on before their very eyes during 
the past year or two, who nevertheless wish to 
turn this country into an occidental China the 
kind of China which every intelligent Chinaman 
of the present day is seeking to abolish. There 
are plenty of politicians, by no means as well 
meaning, who find it to their profit to pander 
to the desire common to most men to live softly 
and easily and avoid risk and effort. Timid and 
lazy men, men absorbed in money-getting, men 
absorbed in ease and luxury, and all soft and 
slothful people naturally hail with delight any- 
body who will give them high-sounding names 
behind which to cloak their unwillingness to 
run risks or to toil and endure. Emotional phil- 
anthropists to whom thinking is a distasteful 
form of mental exercise enthusiastically cham- 
pion this attitude. The faults of all these men 
and women are of a highly non-militaristic and 
unwarlike type; and naturally they feel great 



satisfaction in condemning misdeeds which are 
incident to lives that they would themselves be 
wholly unable to lead without an amount of toil 
and effort that they are wholly unwilling to un- 
dergo. These men and women are delighted to 
pass resolutions in favor of anything with a 
lofty name, provided always that no demand is 
ever made upon them to pay with their bodies to 
even the smallest degree in order to give effect 
to these lofty sentiments. It is questionable 
whether in the long run they do not form a less 
desirable national type than is formed by the 
men who are guilty of the downright iniquities 
of life; for the latter at least have in them ele- 
ments of strength which, if guided aright, could 
be used to good purpose. 

Now, it is probably hopeless ever to convince 
the majority of these men except by actual disas- 
ter that the course they follow is not merely 
wicked, because of its subordination of duty to 
ease, but from their own standpoint utterly short- 
sighted as the fate of the Armenians and the 
Chinese of the present day shows. But I believe 
that the bulk of our people are willing to follow 
duty, even though it be rather unpleasant and 
rather hard, if it can be made clearly evident 
to them; and, moreover, I believe that they are 
capable of looking ahead, and of considering the 
ultimate interest of themselves and their chil- 



dren, if only they can be waked up to vital na- 
tional needs. The members of Sociological So- 
cieties and kindred organizations, and philan- 
thropists, and clergymen, and educators, and all 
other leading men, should pride themselves on 
furnishing leadership in the right direction to 
these men and women who wish to do what is 

The first thing to do is to make these citizens 
understand that war and militarism are terms 
whose values depend wholly upon the sense in 
which they are used. The second thing is to 
make them understand that there is a real 
analogy between the use of force in international 
and the use of force in intra-national or civil 
matters; although of course this analogy must 
not be pushed too far. 

In the first place, we are dealing with a mat- 
ter of definition. A war can be defined as vio 
lence between nations, as the use of force be- 
tween nations. It is analogous to violence 
between individuals within a nation using vio- 
lence in a large sense as equivalent to the use of 
force. When this fact is clearly grasped, the 
average citizen will be spared the mental con- 
fusion he now suffers because he thinks of war 
as in itself wrong. War, like peace, is properly 
a means to an end righteousness. Neither war 
nor peace is in itself righteous, and neither should 



be treated as of itself the end to be aimed at. 
Righteousness is the end. Righteousness when 
triumphant brings peace; but peace may not 
bring righteousness. Whether war is right or 
wrong depends purely upon the purpose for 
which, and the spirit in which, it is waged. Here 
the analogy with what takes place in civil life 
is perfect. The exertion of force or violence 
by which one man masters another may be illus- 
trated by the case of a black-hander who kidnaps 
a child, knocking down the nurse or guardian; 
and it may also be illustrated by the case of the 
guardian who by violence withstands and thwarts 
the black-hander in his efforts to kidnap the child, 
or by the case of the policeman who by force ar- 
rests the black-hander or white-slaver or who- 
ever it is and takes his victim away from him. 
There are, of course, persons who believe that 
all force is immoral, that it is always immoral 
to resist wrongdoing by force. I have never 
taken much interest in the individuals who pro- 
fess this kind of twisted morality; and I do not 
know the extent to which they practically apply 
it. But if they are right in their theory, then it 
is wrong for a man to endeavor by force to 
save his wife or sister or daughter from rape 
or other abuse, or to save his children from ab- 
duction and torture. It is a waste of time to 
discuss with any man a position of such folly, 



wickedness, and poltroonery. But unless a man 
is willing to take this position, he cannot hon- 
estly condemn the use of force or violence in 
war for the policeman who risks and perhaps 
loses or takes life in dealing with an anarchist 
or white-slaver or black-hander or burglar or 
highwayman must be justified or condemned on 
precisely the same principles which require us 
to differentiate among wars and to condemn un- 
stintedly certain nations in certain wars and 
equally without stint to praise other nations in 
certain other wars. 

If the man who objects to war also objects to 
the use of force in civil life as above outlined, 
his position is logical, although both absurd and 
wicked. If the college presidents, politicians, 
automobile manufacturers, and the like, who dur- 
ing the past year or two have preached pacifism 
in its most ignoble and degrading form are will- 
ing to think out the subject and are both sincere 
and fairly intelligent, they must necessarily con- 
demn a police force or a posse comitatus just 
as much as they condemn armies ; and they must 
regard the activities of the sheriff and the con- 
stable as being essentially militaristic and there- 
fore to be abolished. 

There are small communities with which I am 
personally acquainted where the general prog- 
ress has been such as really to permit of this 



abolition of the policeman. In these communi- 
ties and I have in mind specifically one in New 
England and one in the Province of Quebec 
the constable and sheriff have no duties what- 
ever to perform, so far as crimes or deeds of 
violence are concerned. The "social values" in 
these communities are not in any way affected by 
either the international militarism of the soldier 
or by the civil militarism of the policeman, and 
on the whole good results; although I regret to 
say that in each of the two communities I have 
in mind there have been some social develop- 
ments that were not pleasant. 

We ought all of us to endeavor to shape our 
action with a view to extending so far as pos- 
sible the area in which such conditions can be 
made to obtain. But at present the area cannot, 
as a matter of plain fact, be extended to most 
populous communities, or even to ordinary scan- 
tily peopled communities; and to make believe 
that it can be thus extended is a proof, not of 
goodness of heart, but of softness of head. 

As a matter of practical common sense it is 
not worth while spending much time at this mo- 
ment in discussing whether we ought to take 
steps to abolish the police force in New York, 
Chicago, San Francisco, or Montreal, because 
no police force is needed in a certain Vermont 
town or a certain Quebec village. Such a dis- 



cussion would not help us in the least toward an 
appreciation and development of the "social 
values" of any one of the big cities in question. 
Exactly the same principle, only a fortiori, ap- 
plies as regards war. On the whole, there is a 
much greater equality of intellectual and moral 
status among the individuals in a great civilized 
community than there is between the various na- 
tions and peoples of the earth. The task of get- 
ting all the policemen, all the college professors, 
all the business men and mechanics, and also all 
the professional crooks, in New York to abandon 
the reign of force and to live together in har- 
mony without any police force would be undoubt- 
edly very much easier than to secure a similar 
working agreement among the various peoples of 
Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. One of the 
commonest failings of mankind is to try to make 
amends for failure to perform the duty at hand 
by grandiloquent talk about something that is 
afar off. Most of our worthy pacifist friends 
adopt in this matter the attitude Mrs. Jellyby took 
towards foreign missions when compared with 
her own domestic and neighborhood duties. In- 
stead of meeting together and passing resolutions 
to affect the whole world, let them deal with 
the much easier task of regulating their own lo- 
calities. When we have discovered a method 
by which right living may be spread so univer- 



sally in Chicago and New York that the two 
cities can with safety abolish their police forces, 
then, and not till then, it will be worth while to 
talk about "the abolition of war." Until that 
time the discussion will not possess even academic 

The really essential things for men to remem- 
ber, therefore, in connection with war are, first, 
that neither war nor peace is immoral in itself, 
and, secondly, that in order to preserve the "so- 
cial values" which were enumerated in the quo- 
tation with which I began this chapter it is ab- 
solutely essential to prevent the dominance in 
our country of the one form of militarism which 
is surely and completely fatal that is, the mili- 
tary dominion of an alien enemy. 

It is utterly impossible to appreciate social 
values at all or to discriminate between what is 
socially good and socially bad unless we appre- 
ciate the utterly different social values of dif- 
ferent wars. The Greeks who triumphed at 
Marathon and Salamis did a work without which 
the world would have been deprived of the so- 
cial value of Plato and Aristotle, of Aeschylus, 
Herodotus, and Thucydides. The civilization of 
Europe, America, and Australia exists to-day at 
all only because of the victories of civilized man 
over the enemies of civilization, because of vic- 
tories stretching through the centuries from the 



days of Miltiades and Themistocles to those of 
Charles Martel in the eighth century and those 
of John Sobieski in the seventeenth century. 
During the thousand years that included the ca- 
reers of the Prankish soldier and the Polish king, 
the Christians of Asia and Africa proved un- 
able to wage successful war with the Moslem 
conquerors; and in consequence Christianity 
practically vanished from the two continents ; and 
to-day nobody can find in them any "social val- 
ues" whatever, in the sense in which we use the 
words, so far as the sphere of Mohammedan in- 
fluence and the decaying native Christian 
churches are concerned. There are such "social 
values" to-day in Europe, America, and Austra- 
lia only because during those thousand years the 
Christians of Europe possessed the warlike 
power to do what the Christians of Asia and 
Africa had failed to do that is, to beat back 
the Moslem invader. It is of course worth while 
for sociologists to discuss the effect of this Eu- 
ropean militarism on "social values," but only if 
they first clearly realize and formulate the fact 
that if the European militarism had not been 
able to defend itself against and to overcome 
the militarism of Asia and Africa, there would 
have been no "social values" of any kind in our 
world to-day, and no sociologists to discuss them. 
The Sociological Society meets at Washing- 


ton this year only because the man after whom 
the city was named was willing to go to war. If 
he and his associates had not gone to war, there 
would have been no possibility of discussing "so- 
cial values" in the United States, for the excel- 
lent reason that there would have been no United 
States. If Lincoln had not been willing to go 
to war, to appeal to the sword, to introduce mili- 
tarism on a tremendous scale throughout the 
United States, the sociologists who listened to 
this chapter, when it was read to them, if they 
existed at all, would not be considering the "so- 
cial values" enumerated above, but the "social 
values" of slavery and of such governmental and 
industrial problems as can now be studied in 
the Central American republics. 

It is a curious fact that during the thirty years 
prior to the Civil War the men who in the North- 
ern and especially the Northeastern States grad- 
ually grew to take most interest in the anti-slav- 
ery agitation were almost equally interested in 
anti-militaristic and peace movements. Even a 
casual glance at the poems of Longfellow and 
Whittier will show this. They were strong 
against slavery and they were strong against 
war. They did not take the trouble to think 
out the truth, which was that in actual fact slav- 
ery could be abolished only by war; and when 
the time came they had to choose between, on 



the one hand, the "social values" of freedom and 
of union and, on the other hand, the "social 
value" of peace, for peace proved incompatible 
with freedom and union. Being men fit to live 
in a free country, they of course chose freedom 
and union rather than peace. I say men; of 
course I mean women also. I am speaking of 
Julia Ward Howe and Harriet Beecher Stowe 
just exactly as I am speaking of Longfellow and 
Lowell and Whittier. 

Now, during the thirty years preceding the 
Civil War these men and women often debated 
and occasionally in verse or prose wrote about 
the effect of war on what we now call "social 
values." I think that academically they were a 
unit in saying that this effect was bad ; but when 
the real crisis came, when they were faced by 
the actual event, they realized that this academic 
discussion as to the effect of war on "social 
values" was of no consequence whatever. They 
did not want war. Nobody wants war who has 
any sense. But when they moved out of a world 
of dreams into a world of realities they realized 
that now, as always in the past has been the 
case, and as undoubtedly will be the case for a 
long time in the future, war may be the only 
alternative to losing, not merely certain "social 
values," but the national life which means the 
sum of all "social values." They realized that 



as the world is now it is a wicked thing to use 
might against right, and an unspeakably silly, 
and therefore in the long run also a wicked 
thing, to chatter about right without preparing 
to put might back of right. They abhorred a 
wanton or an unjust war and condemned those 
responsible for it as they ought always to be 
condemned ; and, on the other hand, they realized 
that righteous war for a lofty ideal may and 
often does offer the only path by which it is 
possible to move upward and onward. There are 
unquestionably real national dangers connected 
even with a successful war for righteousness; 
but equally without question there are real na- 
tional dangers connected even with times of 
righteous peace. There are dangers attendant 
on every course, dangers to be fought against 
in every kind of life, whether of an individual 
or of a nation. But it is not merely danger, it 
is death, the death of the soul even more than 
the death of the body, which surely awaits the 
nation that does not both cultivate the lofty 
morality which will forbid it to do wrong to 
others, and at the same time spiritually, intel- 
lectually, and physically prepare itself, by the 
development of the stern and high qualities of 
the soul and the will no less than in things ma- 
terial, to defend by its own strength its own 
existence; and, as I at least hope some time will 



be the case, also to fit itself to defend other na- 
tions that are weak and wronged, when in help- 
less misery they are ground beneath the feet of 
the successful militarism which serves evil. At 
present, in this world, and for the immediate fu- 
ture, it is certain that the only way successfully 
to oppose the might which is the servant of 
wrong is by means of the might which is the 
servant of right. 

Nothing is gained by debate on non-debatable 
subjects. No intelligent man desires war. But 
neither can any intelligent man who is willing 
to think fail to realize that we live in a great 
and free country only because our forefathers 
were willing to wage war rather than accept the 
peace that spells destruction. No nation can per- 
manently retain any "social values" worth hav- 
ing unless it 'develops the warlike strength neces- 
sary for its own defence. 



THE professional pacifists who have so ac- 
tively worked for the dishonor of the 
American name and the detriment of the Ameri- 
can nation (and who incidentally have shown 
themselves the basest allies and tools of triumph- 
ant wrong) would do well to bear in view the 
elementary fact that the only possible way by 
which to enable us to live at peace with other 
nations is to develop our strength in order that 
we may defend our own rights. Above all, let 
them realize that a democracy more than any 
other human government needs preparation in 
advance if peace is to be safeguarded against 
war. So far as self-defence is concerned, uni- 
versal military training and, in the event of need, 
universal military service, represent the highest 
expression of the democratic ideal in govern- 

Jefferson had been an apostle of peace who 
had declared "that peace was his passion," and 
his refusal to lead the nation in preparedness 



bore bitter fruit in the war of 1812. But at 
least he learned aright the lesson that was 
taught. In 1813 he wrote to Monroe: 

"We must train and classify the whole of our 
male citizens and make military instruction a 
regular part of collegiate education. We can 
never be safe till this is done." 

And in 1814 he went still further: 

"I think the truth must now be obvious that- 
we cannot be defended but by making every citi- 
zen a soldier, and that in doing this all must be 
marshaled, classed by their ages, and every serv- 
ice ascribed to its competent class." 

President Monroe in his message to Congress 
of December 3rd, 1822, just ninety-three years 
ago, used expressions which without changing 
a word can be applied to the far more urgent 
needs of to-day. He said: 

"The history of the late wars in Europe fur- 
nishes a complete demonstration that no sys- 
tem of conduct however correct in principle, can 
protect neutral powers from injury from any 
party; that a defenceless position and distin- 
guished love of peace are the surest invitations 
to war, and that there is no way to avoid it 
other than by being always prepared and willing 
for just cause to meet it. If there be a people 
on earth whose more especial duty it is to be at 
all times prepared to defend the rights with 



which they are blessed, and to surpass all others 
in sustaining the necessary burthens, and in sub- 
mitting to sacrifices to make such preparations, 
it is undoubtedly the people of these states." 

The question of more real consequence to this 
nation than any other at this moment is the ques- 
tion of preparedness. The first step must be 
preparedness against war. Of course there can 
be no efficient military preparedness against war 
without preparedness for social and industrial 
efficiency in peace. Germany, which is the great 
model for all other nations in matters of effi- 
ciency, has shown this, and if this democracy 
is to endure, it must emulate German efficiency 
adding thereto the spirit of democratic jus- 
tice and of international fair play. Moreover, 
and finally, there can be no preparedness in 
things material, whether of peace or war, with- 
out also preparedness in things mental and spirit- 
ual. There must be preparedness of the soul 
and the mind in order to make full preparedness 
of the body, although it is no' less true that the 
mere fact of preparing the body also prepares 
the soul and the mind. There is the constant 
action and reaction of one kind of preparation 
upon another in nations as in individuals. 

But there are certain elementary facts to be 
grasped by this people before we can have any 
policy at all. The first fact is a thorough un- 



derstanding of that hoary falsehood which de- 
clares that it takes two to make a quarrel. It 
did not take two nations to make the quarrel 
that resulted in Germany trampling Belgium into 
the mire. It is no more true that it takes two 
to make a quarrel in international matters than 
it is to make the same assertion about a high- 
wayman who holds up a passer-by or a black- 
hander who kidnaps a child. The people who 
do not make quarrels, who are not offensive, who 
give no cause for anger, are those who ordinarily 
furnish the victims of highwaymen, black-hand- 
ers and white-slavers. Criminals always attack 
the helpless if possible. In exactly similar fash- 
ion aggressive and militarist nations attack weak 
nations where it is possible. Weakness always 
invites attack. Preparedness usually, but not 
always, averts it. 

The next fact to remember is that it is of no 
use talking about reform and social justice and 
equality of industrial opportunity inside of a na- 
tion, unless that nation can protect itself from 
outside attack. It is not worth while bothering 
about any social or industrial problem in the 
United States unless the United States is willing 
to train itself, to fit itself, so that it can be sure 
that its own people will have the say-so in the set- 
tlement of these problems, and not some nation 
of alien invaders and oppressors. Thanks to 



the weakness we have shown for five years, and 
to the fact that for a year and a half we have 
shown the "neutrality" of the Levite who passed 
by on the other side when he saw on the ground 
the man who had been wounded by robbers near 
Jericho (and at the least the Levite did not boast 
of his "neutrality"), the United States has not 
a friend in the world. 

Again, the United States should make up its 
mind just what its policy is to be. Foolish people 
say that the Monroe Doctrine is outworn, with- 
out taking the trouble to understand what the 
Monroe Doctrine is. As a matter of fact, to 
abandon the Monroe Doctrine would be to invite 
overwhelming disaster. In its essence the Mon- 
roe Doctrine amounts to saying that we shall not 
permit the American lands around us to be made 
footholds for foreign military powers who would 
in all probability create out of them points of 
armed aggression against us. We must there- 
fore make up our mind that we will police and 
defend the Panama Canal and its approaches, 
preserve order and safeguard civilization in the 
territories adjacent to the Caribbean Sea, and 
see that none of these territories, great or small, 
are seized by any military empire of the Old 
World which can use them to our disadvantage. 
A prime duty, of course, is to secure livable con- 
ditions in Mexico. To permit such conditions as 



have obtained in Mexico for the past five years 
is to put a premium upon European interference; 
for where we shirk our duty to ourselves, to 
honest and law-abiding Mexicans, and to all Eu- 
ropean foreigners within Mexico, we cannot ex- 
pect permanently to escape the consequences. 

The events of the past year have shown that 
all talk of preventing aggression from unscrupu- 
lous militaristic nations by arbitration treaties, 
Hague Conventions, peace agreements and the 
like at present represents nothing but empty 
declamation. No person outside of an imbecile 
asylum should be expected to take such talk seri- 
ously at the present time. Leagues to Enforce 
Peace and the like may come in the future; I 
hope they ultimately will; but not until nations 
like our own are not too proud to fight, and are 
too proud not to live up to their agreements. It 
is at best an evidence of silliness and at worst 
an evidence of the meanest insincerity to treat 
the formation of such leagues as possible until 
as a nation we do two things. 

In the first place, we must make ready our 
own strength. In the next place, by our action 
in actually living up to the obligations we as- 
sumed in connection with the Hague Conven- 
tions, we must make it evident that there would 
be some reasonable hope of our living up to the 
onerous obligations that would have to be un- 



dertaken by any nation entering into a League 
to Enforce Peace. The Hague Conventions were 
treaties entered into by us with, among other na- 
tions, Belgium and Germany. Under our Con- 
stitution such a treaty becomes part of "the Su- 
preme Law of the Land," binding upon ourselves 
and upon the other nations that make it. For 
this reason we should never lightly enter into a 
treaty, and should both observe it, and demand 
its observance by others when made. The Hague 
Conventions were part of the Supreme Law of 
our Land, under the Constitution. Therefore 
Germany violated the Supreme Law of our Land 
when she brutally wronged Belgium ; and we per- 
mitted it without a word of protest. 

Nearly eighteen months have gone by since 
with the outbreak of this war it became evident 
to every man willing to face the facts, that mili- 
tary and naval problems and international prob- 
lems of every kind were infinitely more serious 
than we had had reason to believe, that treaties 
were absolutely worthless to protect any nation 
unless backed by armed force, and that the need 
of preparedness was infinitely more urgent than 
any man in this country had up to that time 
believed. The belief that public opinion or in- 
ternational public opinion, unbacked by force, 
had the slightest effect in restraining a powerful 
military nation in any course of action it chose 



to undertake was shown to be a pathetic fallacy. 
But any man who still publicly adheres to and 
defends that opinion at the present time is en- 
gaged in propagating not a pathetic, but an ab- 
solutely mischievous and unpatriotic fallacy. It 
is the simple and literal truth that public opinion 
during the last eighteen months has not had the 
very smallest effect in mitigating any atrocities 
or preventing any wrongdoing by aggressive mil- 
itary powers, save to the exact degree that there 
was behind the public opinion actual strength 
which would be used if the provocation was suf- 
ficiently great. Public opinion has been abso- 
lutely useless as regards Belgium, as regards 
Armenia, as regards Poland. No man can as- 
sert the contrary with sincerity if he takes the 
trouble to examine the facts. 

For eighteen months, with this world-cyclone 
before our eyes, we as a nation have sat supine 
without preparing in any shape or way. It is 
an actual fact that there has not been one soldier, 
one rifle, one gun, one boat, added to the Ameri- 
can Army or Navy so far, because of anything 
that has occurred in this war, and not the slight- 
est step has yet been taken looking toward the 
necessary preparedness. Such national short- 
sightedness, such national folly, is almost incon- 
ceivable. We have had ample warning to or- 
ganize a scheme of defence. We have absolutely 



disregarded the warning, and the measures so 
far officially advocated are at best measures of 
half -preparedness, and as regards the large as- 
pect of the question, are not even that. 

We should consider our national military pol- 
icy as a whole. We must prepare a well-thought- 
out strategic scheme, planned from the stand- 
point of our lasting national interests, and stead- 
ily pursued by preparation and the study of ex- 
perts, through a course of years. The navy is 
our first line of defence, but it must be remem- 
bered that it can be used wisely for defence only 
as an offensive arm. Parrying is never success- 
ful from the standpoint of defence. The attack 
is the proper method of efficient defence. For 
some years we have been using the Navy inter- 
nationally as a bluff defensive force, or rather 
asserting that it would be so used and could 
be so used. Its real value is as an offensive force 
in the interest of any war undertaken for our 
own defence. Freedom of action by the fleet is 
the secret of real naval power. This cannot be 
attained until we have at our disposal an ef- 
fective military establishment which would en- 
able us when threatened to repel any force dis- 
embarking on our coast. This is fundamental. 
It is only by creating a sufficient army that we 
can employ our fleet on its legitimate functions. 
The schemes of the Navy must always be cor- 



related with the plans of the Army, and both of 
them with the plans of the State Department, 
which should never under any circumstances un- 
dertake any scheme of foreign policy without 
considering what our military situation is and 
may be made. For reasons I give elsewhere I 
believe that we should base our military and 
naval program upon the retention and defence 
of Alaska, Hawaii, the Panama Canal and all 
its approaches, including all the points of South 
American soil north of the Equator, and of 
course, including the defence of our own coasts 
and the islands of the West Indies. To free the 
Navy we need ample coast defences manned by 
a hundred thousand men, and a mobile regular 
army of one hundred and fifty thousand men. 
The proposed Administration program is a 
make-believe program. It is entirely inade- 
quate to our needs. It is a proposal not to do 
something effective immediately, but to do some- 
thing entirely ineffective immediately, and to 
trust that the lack will be made good in succeed- 
ing years. Congress has never been willing to 
carry out the plans advocated by the General 
Board. Until 1911, however, the differences be- 
tween what was needed and what was actually 
appropriated for, although real, was not appal- 
lingly great. At the very time, however, when 
the extraordinary development of navies abroad 



rendered it imperative that we should enlarge 
our own program and treat it far more se- 
riously than ever before, Congress stopped en- 
tirely the proper upbuilding of the Navy. At 
present what is needed is immediately to strain 
every nerve of the government so that this year 
we will begin work on half-a-dozen formidable 
fighting battleships and formidable speedy armed 
cruisers. Whether we begin them in public or 
private yards is of no earthly consequence com- 
pared with the vital importance of beginning on 
these ships somewhere at once not next sum- 
mer, but within thirty or sixty days. Frederick 
Palmer has recently shown that in the three 
squadron actions of this war the beaten side has 
behaved with the same skill and prowess shown 
by the victors but has been beaten purely be- 
cause of the superiority of its opponent in the 
speed of the ships and in the range and power 
of the guns. He has furthermore shown that in 
these three squadron actions the defeated ships 
were in each case superior to any of our cruisers 
in speed and range and power of guns. In other 
words, our cruisers would be helpless against 
those of a first-rate power at the present time. 
Our people need to remember that half- 
preparation is no preparation at all. A great 
many well-meaning people are of the same mind 
as a philanthropist who wrote me the other day 



to the effect that he believed in some prepared- 
ness, but not much. This is like building a bridge 
half way across a stream, but not all the way. I 
regret to state that this seems to be the attitude 
which our Government now takes as a substitute 
for its attitude of a year ago, when its view was 
that preparedness was "hysterical," immoral and 
unnecessary. The only proper attitude is that 
there shall be no preparedness at all that is not 
necessary, but that in so far as there is need 
for preparedness the need shall be fully met. 
Years ago I served as a deputy sheriff in the cat- 
tle country. Of course I prepared in advance for 
my job. I carried what was then the best type 
of revolver, a .45 self-cocker. I was instructed 
never to use it unless it was absolutely necessary 
to do so, and I obeyed the instructions. But if 
in the interest of "peace" it had been proposed 
to arm me only with a .22 revolver, I would 
promptly have resigned my job. 

There are two immediately vital needs to be 

i. That our navy shall at the earliest possible 
moment be made the second in the world in point 
of size and efficiency. We do not need to make 
it the first, because Great Britain is not a mili- 
tary power, and our relations with Canada are 
on a basis of such permanent friendliness that 
hostile relations need not be considered. But 



the British Empire would, quite properly, be 
"neutral" if we were engaged in war with some 
great European or Asiatic power. 

2. That our regular army shall be increased 
to at least a quarter of a million men, with an 
ample reserve of men who could be at once put 
in the ranks in the event of a sudden attack 
upon us; and provision made for many times 
the present number of officers; and in admin- 
istration, provision made for a combination of 
entire efficiency with rigid economy that will be- 
gin with the abandonment of the many useless 
army posts and navy yards. 

Neither of these needs is in any way met by 
the Administration's proposals. I am sincerely 
glad that the Administration has now reversed 
the attitude taken in the President's message 
to Congress of December, 1914, in which he ad- 
vocated keeping this nation unprepared and help- 
less to defend its honor and vital interest 
against foreign foes. But I no less sincerely re- 
gret that the Administration has not thought out 
the situation and is not prepared to present a 
real and substantial plan for defence instead of a 
shadow program. During the last three years 
our navy has fallen off appallingly in relative po- 
sition among the nations. The Administration 
now proposes a plan, to be followed mainly by the 
next Administration, which, if hereafter lived 



up to, would nominally replace the navy where it 
formerly was in ten years' time and really not 
until twenty years have passed a plan which in 
reality, therefore, is merely an adroit method of 
avoiding substantial action in the present. This 
will not do. There should be no policy of adroit 
delay and make-believe action. Our government 
should make provision this year which will insure 
the regaining of our naval place at the earliest 
possible moment. The work should begin on a 
large scale at once. This is of the first impor- 

But it is also vital to bring the army abreast of 
national needs. The proposed plan to create a 
rival national guard of half -trained or quarter- 
trained volunteers for that is what the absurdly 
named "continental army" would amount to if 
tried will prove very expensive, very detrimental 
to the existing national guard, and entirely use- 
less from the standpoint of meeting the real needs 
of the country. It is thoroughly undemocratic, 
for it appeals to the "patriotism" of the employer 
to let his employees be trained to do his fighting ! 
It would put a business premium on the unpatri- 
otic employer who would not permit his men to 
take part in it. It would be much wiser to spend 
the money in increasing the size and efficiency 
of the national guard, and establishing national 
control over it although this also would be a 



mere half-measure, in no way going to the root 
of things. The Administration has declined to 
ask for the adoption of any of the military sys- 
tems which have been so strikingly successful in 
Switzerland, Australia, Argentina, not to speak 
of Germany. Instead they, congenially, ask for 
the system which England fatuously tried, and 
which in the crisis proved worthless. Their pro- 
posed "continental army" has nothing in common 
with Washington's continental army, which was 
an army of regulars, whose efficiency was con- 
ditioned by service year in and year out in win- 
ter and summer. It is nothing but the English 
"territorial" army, reliance upon which by Eng- 
land was one of the main factors in securing that 
unpreparedness for war for which England is 
now paying so heavy a penalty for the splendid 
courage and self-sacrifice of the English who are 
now fighting so gallantly can not wholly undo 
the effects of the failure adequately to prepare in 
advance. The best men among the Territorials 
keenly realized the truth of the position taken by 
that high-minded old hero, Lord Roberts, and in 
1913 memorialized the English government in fa- 
vor of a system of universal military service as 
the only adequate method to secure effective 
home defence. But the political leaders of Eng- 
land insisted upon blindly following the easy path 
to disaster, the path down which, in imitation 



of these blind leaders, our own American politi- 
cians now contentedly amble. 

The proposed increase in the size of the regu- 
lar army as outlined by the Administration is 
utterly inadequate to serve any real purpose. It 
is one of those half-measures which are of serv- 
ice, if at all, only from the political standpoint. 
Either we need to prepare or we do not. If we 
do, then we should prepare adequately. I should 
not regard as wise a proposal for doing away 
with the New York Fire Department the wis- 
dom of such a proposal being about on a par with 
the wisdom of the attitude of Messrs. Bryan, 
Ford, Jordan, and the rest of the professional 
pacifists, as regards what they are pleased to 
call "militarism." Yet it would not be mate- 
rially less wise than a proposal to compromise, 
by, on the one hand, having fire engines, 
but, on the other hand, not fitting them to throw 
a stream of water higher than the second story. 
The military plans of the Administration are on 
a level with plans for the New York Fire Depart- 
ment which should provide only for second-story 
hose; they go on the theory that it is desirable 
to try to put out a fire a little, but not too much. 
Now, it is always wise either to let a fire alone or 
to deal with it. thoroughly. 

The unwisdom of being content with a sham 
in this case is shown by the opposition of the pro- 


fessional pacifists and peace-at-any-price leaders 
even to the shkdow-plan of the Administration. 
They have been busily engaged in opposing it on 
the ground that it is "rushing into militarism," 
and that a standing army is an "instrument for 
aggression." Of course in reality the trouble 
with the Administration's plan is that the stand- 
ing army it would provide would not even be an 
instrument for defence. As for "rushing into 
militarism," we are not even trickling in that di- 
rection. The proposal advocated by the real be- 
lievers in national defence (as distinguished 
from those who support the Administration's 
plan) is to make the regular army, relatively to 
the United States, as large as the New York po- 
lice force is relatively to the city of New York; 
for a quarter of a million men bears to the nation 
just about the proportion that the present police 
force does to New York City. Surely even hys- 
teria cannot see "militarism" and "aggression" 
in such a proposal. 

A few of the professional pacifists now support 
the Government's plan for a half preparation, for 
pretending to meet needs without meeting them. 
But the extreme pacifists can always be trusted to 
insist on the nadir of folly. They do not wish 
to see this nation even pretend to act with self- 
respect. It is natural that they should wage a 
sham battle with a sham, for all their utterances 



are those of men who dwell in a world of windy 
make-believe. Their argument is that we should 
have no preparedness whatever, that we should 
not prepare for defence, nor bear arms, nor be 
able to use force, and that this nation must "in- 
fluence others by example rather than by exciting 
fear," and must secure its safety "not by carry- 
ing arms, but by an upright, honorable course." 
Of course such a position can be honestly held 
by a man of intelligence only if he also demands 
the abolition of the police force throughout the 
United States and announces that he will not re- 
sent the action of an offender who slaps the face 
of his wife or outrages his daughter. However, 
to argue with these gentlemen is to waste time, 
for there can be no greater waste of time than 
to debate about non-debatable things. 

It seems literally incredible that any human be- 
ing can take the position now taken by the pro- 
fessional pacifists, with the fates of Belgium and 
China before their eyes at this very moment. 
China has sought to influence others "by exam- 
ple" instead of by "exciting fear," and half her 
territory is in the possession of aliens. Belgium 
thought to secure her safety "by an upright hon- 
orable course" instead of by "carrying arms," 
and in consequence she has been trampled into 
dust. Probably there is not in all Belgium a man, 
a woman, or a child over six years old, who would 



consider the arguments of these pacifists against 
preparedness as other than peculiarly heartless 
jests. In China, however, among elderly man- 
darins of unusually conservative type, it is pos- 
sible that they would be taken seriously. 

I very earnestly hope that the ordinary citi- 
zens of this country, since their official leaders 
refuse to lead them, will themselves wake to 
their own needs and lead the should-be leaders. 
Let us at once take action to make us the second 
naval power in the world. Let us take the action 
this year, not the year after next. Do it now. 
The navy is our first line of defence. It is from 
the national standpoint literally criminal to neg- 
lect it. 

As regards the army, first and foremost let us 
know the advice of the experts. Then provide 
a regular army of a quarter of a million men. 
Relatively to the nation this army would be no 
larger than the New York police force is rela- 
tively to the city of New York. On paper our 
present strength is 100,000, and we have in the 
United States a mobile army of only 30,000 men. 
We need 10,000 more men adequately to man our 
coast defences at home, and 5,000 additional ade- 
quately to man those abroad. We need 20,000 
additional men to provide an adequate mobile 
army for meeting a raid on our overseas pos- 
sessions. At home we should have a mobile army 



of 150,000 men, in order to guarantee us against 
having New York or San Francisco at once 
seized by any big military nation which went to 
war with us. A quarter of a million in the regu- 
lar army is the minimum that will insure the na- 
tion's safety from sudden attack. 

In addition we must provide backing for this 
regular army. Provide a real reserve of enlisted 
men. Provide as many officers, active and re- 
serve taken together, as will enable us to officer 
a million and a half of men in the event of war. 
Meanwhile do everything possible for the na- 
tional guard, providing the necessary Federal 
control to make it really efficient ; and provide for 
many training camps like that at Plattsburg. 
Drop the undemocratic continental volunteer 
army which discriminates between employer and 
employed, which would help the unpatriotic em- 
ployer who refused to 'do as his patriotic rival 
was glad to do, and which would result merely 
in the establishment of an inefficient rival to the 
national guard. Provide an adequate reserve of 
war material this is of prime importance. 

We should at once begin governmental encour- 
agement and control of our munition plants. To 
make war on them is to make war on the United 
States; and those doing so should be treated ac- 
cordingly and all who encourage them should be 
treated accordingly. The existing plants should 



be encouraged in every legitimate way, and provi- 
sion made to encourage their continuance after 
the war. But it is most unfortunate that they are 
situated so near the seacoast. The establishment 
of munition plants further inland should be pro- 
vided for, without delay. Pittsburg is as far east 
as any plant should by rights be placed. This 
whole matter of providing and regulating the 
output of munitions is one in which Germany 
should especially stand as our model. Let us 
study carefully what she has done, and then de- 
velop and adapt to our own needs the schemes 
which she has found successful, supplementing 
them with whatever additional measures our own 
experience may indicate as advisable. There 
should be a great plant in the southern iron fields 
the iron fields whose development was rendered 
possible by the wise action of the United States 
Government in permitting the United States Steel 
Corporation to secure the Tennessee Coal and 
Iron Company, action which has since been 
passed on and approved by the Federal courts. 

Steadily remember that ample material is use- 
less unless we prepare in advance the highly 
trained personnel to handle it. This applies all 
the way through from battle cruisers and sub- 
marines to coast guns and field artillery and aero- 
planes. We need the best types of sea-going sub- 
marines. We need an immense development of 



the Aviation Corps. I wonder how many of our 
people understand that at this time the total 
strength of the officers and men in the French 
Aviation Corps surpasses in number the total 
strength of the officers and enlisted men in the 
United States Army? As regards the army 
strict economy should at once be introduced, and, 
as a preliminary, all useless army posts should 
be abandoned just as economy in the navy 
should imply the abandonment of useless navy 
yards. A board of first-class army officers, and 
another of first-class navy officers, should be 
chosen and required to report, on purely military 
grounds, which posts should be kept and which 
abandoned; and their reports should be followed 
implicitly. However, we ought to have training 
posts for a mass of officers ready to lead our 
citizen armies in time of need; and these army 
posts and navy yards could be very advanta- 
geously used for this purpose. 

These are the needs that can be and ought to be 
immediately met. But I believe with all my heart 
that we must adopt a system of universal service 
on the Swiss or Australian models, adapted of 
course to our own needs. This is the method of 
true democracy. In a free republic rights should 
only be allowed as corollaries to duties. No man 
has a right to vote who shirks his obligations to 
the state whether in peace or war. The full citi- 



zen must do a citizen's full duty ; and he can only 
do his full duty if he fits himself to fight for the 
common good of all citizens in the hour of deadly 
peril of the nation's life. Manhood suffrage 
should mean manhood service in war just as 
much as in peace. People speak in praise of vol- 
unteers. I also praise the volunteer who volun- 
teers to fight. But I do not praise the volunteer 
who volunteers to have somebody else fight in 
his place. Universal service is the only way by 
which we can secure real democracy, real fair- 
ness and justice. Every able-bodied youth in 
the land should be proud to, and should be re- 
quired to, prepare himself thoroughly to protect 
the nation from armed aggression. 

The question of expense is of wholly secondary 
importance in a matter which may well be of 
life or death significance to the nation. Five 
years hence it may be altogether too late to spend 
any money! We will do well at this time to 
adopt, with a slight modification, the motto popu- 
lar among our forefathers a century ago: Mil- 
lions for defence but not a cent for either tribute 
or aggression. 

Fortunately we can, if we have sufficient good 
sense and foresight, not only successfully safe- 
guard ourselves against attack from without, 
but can, and ought to, do it in such a manner as 
immeasurably to increase our moral and material 



efficiency in our everyday lives. Proper prepa- 
ration for self-defence will be of immense inci- 
dental help in solving our spiritual and indus- 
trial problems. 

In a country like ours a professional army will 
always be costly, for as regards such an army 
the Government has to go into the labor market 
for its soldiers, and compete against industrial- 
ism. Universal service, as an obligation on every 
citizen, is the only way by which to secure an eco- 
nomical and inexpensive army. 

A democracy fit to be called such must do its 
own fighting, and therefore must make ready in 
advance. The poltroon and the professional 
pacifist are out of place in a democracy. The 
man fit for self-government must be fit to fight 
for self-government. Universal service means 
preparedness not for war but primarily against 
war. Such essentially democratic preparedness 
would render it less likely that war will come 
and certain that if it does come we shall avoid 
disgrace and disaster. Such preparedness would 
mean much for the soul of this nation. The effi- 
ciency of the average man in civil life would be 
thereby greatly increased. He would be trained 
to realize that he is a partner in this giant de- 
mocracy, and has duties to the other partners. 
He would first learn how to obey and then how 
to command. He would acquire habits of order, 



of cleanliness, of self-control, of self-restraint, of 
respect for himself and for others. The whole 
system would be planned with especial regard to 
the conditions and needs of the farmer and the, 
workingman. The average citizen would become 
more efficient in his work and a better man in 
his relations to his neighbors. We would se- 
cure far greater social solidarity and mutual un- 
derstanding and genuine efficiency among our 
citizens in time of peace. In time of war we 
would put back of the navy and of the regular 
army the weight of the whole nation. With the 
navy and the very small regular army asked for, 
only a quarter of a million men, we would be 
able to meet sudden emergencies ; and behind the 
army and navy would stand a people so trained 
and so fitted that if the demand was not merely 
to meet a sudden emergency but a great and long- 
continued strain, our citizens would be able to 
furnish within a reasonably short time the num- 
ber of men necessary to meet this strain. 

Universal military service as here indicated 
would be the best preliminary for fitting this na- 
tion for the kind of efficient industrialism, and 
efficiency of spiritual and moral patriotism from 
the standpoint of the commonwealth as a whole, 
which would make us able to parallel the extraor- 
dinary German achievements without loss of our 
own democratic spirit. It is our great duty to 



combine preparedness for peace, efficiency in se- 
curing both industrial success and industrial jus- 
tice, with preparedness against war. We need 
not in servile fashion follow exactly the example 
set abroad, but if we are wise we will profit by 
what has been achieved, notably among great 
industrial nations like Germany, in these matters. 
Switzerland has shown that the most absolute 
democracy, without one touch of militarism, can 
develop high industrial efficiency in time of peace 
and can adequately prepare against war while 
at the same time securing a marked advance 
among the citizens in their relations with one an- 
other, as regards the qualities of mutual respect, 
of order, of regard for the law and for the rights 
of the weak. We are the largest republic of the 
world. Let us be ashamed to fall behind France, 
a great republic, and Switzerland, a small but 
gallant republic, and Australia, the great democ- 
racy of the South Seas, and Argentina and Chile 
in our own hemisphere, in such matters as pa- 
triotism, as national efficiency, as the subordina- 
tion of the individual to the socialized welfare of 
the people as a whole. 

The Administration, at this most critical 
period of our history, when our people so need 
the light, has refused to let them have the light, 
by forbidding the professional officers to discuss 
the problems which they are especially fitted to 



discuss. It is treachery to the republic for states- 
men and for professional officers to propose 
and to acquiesce in unsound half-measures which 
necessitate large continuing expenditures, but 
which do not provide for adequate national de- 

I am told that "women oppose war," and there- 
fore that, with illogical folly, they oppose pre- 
paredness against war. I appeal, as a lover of 
peace, in the name of my wife and myself the 
father and mother of sons who would have to 
go to war, and of daughters who in war would 
work and suffer as much as the sons to every 
good man and good woman in this country. We 
dread war; but we follow Washington and Lin- 
coln in dreading some things worse than war. 
Therefore we desire to prepare against war. I 
wish every man and woman in the land would 
read a piece in the November Woman's Home 
Companion which my wife recently showed me. 
The writer does not give her name. She says 
she is "a plain old woman of seventy-three" who 
lives "in a little country town in Kansas." She 
tells of her husband, John, a skilled mechanic, 
who went to war in '61, who later grew blind 
from injuries received in the war, and whose life 
was a hard, hard struggle. She says that she 
would like to see everything done to keep war 
away from us; that therefore she would like to 



see "forts, submarines, a fine strong fleet, and 
then every boy raised to be a soldier," to see 
"every man in some farm, or factory, or business 
in peace times," but trained so as to be always 
ready to defend the nation if the call comes; and 
she "would include the girls, too" which is quite 
right, for universal service does not mean that 
every man must fight, but that every man or 
woman must serve the country in the position in 
which he or she can render best service. She 
ends by saying: "I did raise my boy to be a sol- 
dier. If a million other mothers, if every mother 
in the country would do the same, we would be 
safe forever." 

Universal service would be in every way benefi- 
cial to the state and would be quite as beneficial 
from the standpoint of those who consider the in- 
terest of the state in time of peace as from the 
standpoint of those who are interested in the 
welfare of the state in time of war. The nor- 
mal tests of military efficiency are the very tests 
which would test a man's efficiency for industry 
and for the ordinary tasks of civil life. If a 
large percentage of men are unfit for military 
service it shows that they are also poorly fit for 
industrial work. A high percentage of infant 
mortality does not mean the weeding out of the 
unfit ; it means the existence of conditions which 
greatly impair the vitality of even those who 



survive. Moreover, the moral effect is at least 
as great as the physical. 

The fundamental evil in this country is the 
lack of sufficiently general appreciation of the 
responsibility of citizenship. Unfair business 
methods, the misused power of capital, the unjus- 
tified activities of labor, pork-barrel legislation, 
and graft among powerful politicians have all 
been made possible by, and have been mani- 
festations of, this fundamental evil. Nothing 
would do more to remedy this evil than the kind 
of training in citizenship, in patriotism and in 
efficiency, which would come as the result of uni- 
versal service on the Swiss or Australian models 
or rather on a combination of the two adapted to 
our needs. There should be military training, 
as part of a high-school education which should 
include all-round training for citizenship. This 
training should begin in the schools in serious 
fashion at about the age of 16. Then between 
the ages of 18 and 21 there should be six months 
actual and continuous service in the field with 
the colors. 

Such universal training would give our young 
men the discipline, the sense of orderly liberty 
and of loyalty to the interests of the whole peo- 
ple which would tell in striking manner for na- 
tional cohesion and efficiency. It would tend to 
enable us in time of need to mobilize not only 



troops but workers and financial resources and 
industry itself and to coordinate all the factors 
in national life. There can be no such mobiliza- 
tion and coordination until we appreciate the ne- 
cessity and value of national organization; and 
universal service would be a most powerful fac- 
tor in bringing about such general appreciation. 

As a result of it, every man, whether he car- 
ried a rifle or labored on public works or man- 
aged a business or worked on a railway, would 
have a clearer conception of his obligations to the 
State. It would moreover be a potent method of 
Americanizing the immigrant. The events of 
the last eighteen months have shown us the grav- 
ity of the danger to American life of the exist- 
ence of foreign communities within our borders, 
where men are taught to preserve their former 
national identity instead of entering unreservedly 
into our own national life. The hyphenated 
American of any type is a bad American and an 
enemy to this country: The best possible anti- 
scorbutic for this danger is universal service. 

Such a service would be essentially democratic. 
A man has no more right to escape military serv- 
ice in time of need than he has to escape paying 
his taxes. We do not beseech a man to "volun- 
teer" to pay his taxes, or scream that it would 
be "an infringement of his liberty" and "con- 
trary to our traditions" to make him pay them. 



We simply notify him how much he is to pay, 
and when, and where. We ought to deal just 
as summarily with him as regards the even more 
important matter of personal service to the com- 
monwealth in time of war. He is not fit to live 
in the state unless when the state's life is at stake 
he is willing and able to serve it in any way that 
it can best use his abilities, and, as an incident, 
to fight for it if the state believes it can best use 
him in such fashion. Unless he takes this posi- 
tion he is not fit to be a citizen and should be 
deprived of the vote. Universal service is the 
practical, democratic method of dealing with this 
problem. Rich boy and poor boy would sleep 
under the same dog tent and march shoulder to 
shoulder in the hikes. Such service would have 
an immense democratizing effect It would im- 
prove the health of the community, physically 
and morally. It would increase our national 
power of discipline and self-control. It would 
produce a national state of mind which would 
enable us all more clearly to realize the necessity 
of social legislation in dealing with industrial 
conditions of every kind, from unemployment 
among men and the labor of women and chil- 
dren to the encouragement of business activities. 
What I thus -advocate is nothing new. I am 
merely applying to present day conditions the 
advice given by President George Washington 



when he submitted a plan for universal military 
training in his special message to Congress of 
January 2ist, 1790. This plan advocated mili- 
tary training for all the young men of the coun- 
try, stating that "every man of proper age and 
ability of body is firmly bound by the social com- 
pact to perform personally his proportion of 
military duty for the defence of the state," and 
that "all men of the legal military age should be 
held responsible for different degrees of military 
service," and that "the United States are to pro- 
vide for arming, organizing and disciplining 
these men." This is merely another name for 
compulsory universal service, and the plan ac- 
tually provided that no man of military age 
should vote unless he possessed a certificate 
showing that he had performed such service. 
Washington did not regard professional pacifists 
as entitled to the suffrage. 

I advocate universal service because it would 
be a potent means of securing a quickened so- 
cial conscience ; because it would help us greatly 
industrially ; and because it would put us where, 
if necessary, we shall be able to defend ourselves 
against aggression. This is part, and a vital 
part, of the doctrine of the larger American- 
ism. The prime work for this nation at this mo- 
ment is to rebuild its own character. Let us find 
our own souls ; let us frankly face the world situ- 



ation to-day as it affects ourselves and as it af- 
fects all other countries. We must have a defi- 
nite home policy and we must have a definite for- 
eign policy. Let us, when we enter into treaties, 
speak the truth, be wary of making promises, and 
honorable in fulfilling them. Let us clearsight- 
edly and after mature deliberation adopt a defi- 
nite policy without and within our borders 
and then prepare ourselves to carry it through. 
Let us quit trying to fool ourselves by indulging 
in cheap self-assertion or even cheaper sentimen- 
tality. We must have a period of self -searching. 
We must endeavor to recover our lost self-re- 
spect. Let us show in practical fashion that we 
fear God and therefore deal justly with all men ; 
and let us also show that we can take our own 
part; for if we cannot take our own part we 
may be absolutely certain that no one else will 
try to take it for us. A policy of unprepared- 
ness and of tame submission to insult and ag- 
gression invites the kind of repeated insolence by 
foreign nations which in the end will drive our 
people into war. I advocate preparedness, and 
action (not merely words) on behalf of our hon- 
or and interest, because such preparedness and 
the readiness for such action are the surest guar- 
antees of self-respecting peace. 

The larger Americanism demands that we in- 
sist that every immigrant who comes here shall 



become an American citizen and nothing else; 
if he shows that he still remains at heart more 
loyal to another land, let him be promptly re- 
turned to that land; and if, on the other hand, 
he shows that he is in good faith and whole- 
heartedly an American, let him be treated as on 
a full equality with the native born. This means 
that foreign born and native born alike should 
be trained to absolute loyalty to the flag, and 
trained so as to be able effectively to defend the 
flag. The larger Americanism demands that we 
refuse to be sundered from one another along 
lines of class or creed or section or national ori- 
gin; that we judge each American on his mer- 
its as a man; that we work for the well-being 
of our bodily selves, but also for the well-being 
of our spiritual selves; that we consider safety, 
but that we put honor and duty ahead of safety. 
Only thus shall we stand erect before the world, 
high of heart, the masters of our own souls, fit 
to be the fathers of a face of freemen who shall 
make and shall keep this land all that it seemed 
to the prophetic vision of the mighty men who 
founded it and the mighty men who saved it. 




THE present Administration, with its invet- 
erate fondness for Ephraim's diet, and its 
conviction that phrase-making is an efficient sub- 
stitute for action, has plumed itself on the sen- 
tence, "America First." In practice it has acted 
on the theory of "America Last," both at home 
and abroad, both in Mexico and on the high seas. 
One of the first and most elementary duties of 
any nation worth calling either civilized or self- 
respecting is to protect its citizens from murder 
and outrage. For five years in Mexico, and for 
a year and a half on the high seas in connection 
with the great European war, the United States 
Government has signally and basely failed in the 
performance of this duty. The number of cases 
in which American men, women and children 
have been murdered on the high seas, first by 
German, and now by Austrian, submarines, and 
the number of cases in which American men 
have been murdered and American women raped 
in Mexico and in which American soldiers of the 



United States, wearing the United States uni- 
form, have been killed or wounded, and civilians, 
men, women and children, killed or wounded on 
American territory by Mexican soldiers, taken 
in the aggregate mount far up into the hundreds. 
The murders of Americans that have taken place 
within the last thirty days have been of peculiarly 
cold-blooded character. They have represented 
a contemptuous disbelief in President Wilson's 
willingness to do anything except write notes. 
The deaths of these men and women are prima- 
rily due to President Wilson's policy of timidity 
and weakness. 

Not one effective step has been taken to put an 
end to these atrocities. Moreover, for five years 
the outrages on the persons and property of other 
foreigners in Mexico have been numerous; and 
innocent Mexicans have been butchered by scores 
of thousands; and in many thousands of cases 
Mexican girls and women have been submitted to 
the last extremity of infamy and outrage by the 
brutal bandits masquerading as military or civil 
leaders of the Mexican people. Our government 
has let these people procure ammunition with 
which to murder our own soldiers and their own 
peaceful citizens; and the President has actually 
proclaimed that they ought not to be interfered 
with in "spilling blood." 

During the last year and a half unoffending, 


peaceful and law-abiding neutral nations like Bel- 
gium, unoffending, industrious and law-abiding 
peoples like the Armenians, have been subjected 
to wrongs far greater than any that have been 
committed since the close of the Napoleonic 
Wars; and many of them are such as recall the 
days of the Thirty Years' War in Europe, and, 
indeed, in the case of the Armenians, the wars of 
Genghis Khan and Tamerlane in Asia. Yet this 
government has not raised its hand to do any- 
thing to help the people who were wronged or to 
antagonize the oppressors. 

It is not an accident, it betokens a certain se- 
quence of cause and effect, that this course of 
national infamy on our part began when the last 
Administration surrendered to the peace-at-any- 
price people, and started the negotiation of its 
foolish and wicked all-inclusive arbitration 
treaties. Individuals and nations who preach 
the doctrine of milk and water invariably have in 
them a softness of fiber which means that they 
fear to antagonize those who preach and prac- 
tise the doctrine of blood and iron. It is true of 
our people, as once it was true of the fellow- 
countrymen of Ruskin when he said : "We have 
been passive where we should not have been pas* 
sive, for fear. The principle of non-intervention, 
as now practised among us, is as selfish and cruel 
as the worst frenzy of conquest, and differs from 



it only by being not only malignant, but das- 

Professional pacifists of the stamp of Messrs. 
Bryan, Jordan and Ford, who in the name of 
peace preach doctrines that would entail not 
merely utter infamy but utter disaster to their 
own country, never in practice venture to de- 
nounce concrete wrong by dangerous wrongdo- 
ers. Professional pacifists attack evil only when 
it can be done with entire safety to themselves. 
In the present great crisis, the professional paci- 
fists have confined themselves to trying to pre- 
vent the United States from protecting its honor 
and interest and the lives of its citizens abroad; 
and in their loud denunciations of war they have 
been careful to use language which would apply 
equally to terribly wronged peoples defending 
all that was dear to them against cynical and 
ruthless oppression, and to the men who were re- 
sponsible for this cynical and ruthless oppres- 
sion. They dare not speak for righteousness in 
the concrete. They dare not speak against the 
most infamous wrong in the concrete. They 
work hand in glove with these exponents of hy- 
phenated Americanism who are seeking to turn 
this country into an ally and tool of alien mili- 

These professional pacifists, through President 
Wilson, have forced this country into a path of 



shame and dishonor during the past eighteen 
months. Thanks to President Wilson, the most 
powerful of democratic nations has refused to 
recognize the binding moral force of interna- 
tional public law. Our country has shirked its 
clear duty. One outspoken and straightforward 
declaration by this government against the dread- 
ful iniquities perpetrated in Belgium, Armenia 
and Servia would have been worth to humanity 
a thousand times as much as all that the profes- 
sional pacifists have done in the past fifty years. 
The effect of our inaction in Mexico has been 
unspeakably dreadful. It has on the whole been 
surpassed in dishonor by the action of our gov- 
ernment in reference to the great European War 
remembering in both cases that supine inaction 
may under many conditions prove the very worst 
form of action. Fine phrases become sickening 
when they represent nothing whatever but adroit- 
ness in phrase-making, with no intention of put- 
ting deeds behind the phrases. For three years 
the United States Government has been engaged 
in sending notes and diplomatic protests and in- 
quiries and warnings and ultimatums and pen- 
ultimatums to Germany, to Mexico, to Austria; 
and not one of these notes really meant or 
achieved anything. These notes of Mr. Wilson 
resemble the "notes" of Mr. Micawber. The 
Micawber notes and the Wilson notes were of dif- 



ferent kinds. But in value they were plainly on a 
par. The Micawber notes always went to protest ; 
and Mr. Micawber always fondly believed that one 
could be sufficiently met by issuing another. Mr. 
Wilson has suffered from the same fond delusion. 

During this period the Administration has 
failed to protect its naturalized citizens in 
their rights when they have behaved them- 
selves; and yet when they have not behaved 
themselves has failed to insist on their perform- 
ing their duties to the country to which they have 
sworn allegiance. It has permitted the represen- 
tatives of the German and Austrian peoples and 
the German-Americans and Austro-Americans 
whose allegiance is to Germany or Austria and 
not to the United States to carry on within our 
border a propaganda of which one of the results 
has been the partial or entire destruction by fire 
or dynamite of factory after factory. Summary 
action of a drastic type would have put a stop to 
this warfare waged against our people in time of 
peace; but the Administration has not ventured 
to act. There has been a great alien conspiracy 
carried on against America on American soil, 
and it has been encouraged by the Administra- 
tion's passivity. 

The Austrian Ambassador, Dr. Dumba, wrote 
to the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs: 
"We can disorganize and hold up, if not entirely 


prevent, the manufacture of munitions in Beth- 
lehem and the Middle West, which is of great 
importance, and amply outweighs the expendi- 
ture of money involved." Three months after 
this was written, the threat was made good as 
regards Bethlehem, and the Germania Herald in 
Milwaukee expressed joy over the deed, saying 
on November I2th : "We rejoice from the depths 
of our heart over the destruction of these mur- 
derous machines." Ten days later a so-called 
"German-American" mass meeting took place in 
Milwaukee, and the same paper next day re- 
marked with exultation: "Germany last night 
spoke to her children on a foreign shore loudly 
and distinctly." So she did. The president of 
the meeting said that their purpose was "to 
spread German ideals" throughout the country 
(we have seen above how they were spread, with 
the bomb and the torch) and that he and his fel- 
lows "considered the hyphen an honor." The 
next speaker was quite as frank, saying: "We 
are all German brothers together, no matter in 
what country w r e may live." The men who make 
and applaud such utterances are the enemies of 
this country. Their insolence is rendered pos- 
sible because this Administration is too afraid of 
the political consequences to dare to uphold the 
honor of the American flag or protect the lives 
of American citizens. 



Before recurring to the dreadful dereliction 
of duty to our own citizens I wish to speak an- 
other word as to the failure on our part to per- 
form our duty toward neutral nations. On Au- 
gust 23rd, 1915, the New York World, recog- 
nized by common consent as President Wilson's 
special organ, published in detail certain secret 
papers obtained from the German Embassy as 
to the negotiations between the Embassy and 
President Wilson and as to the steps taken by 
the German representatives to engineer a pro- 
German campaign in the United States. I would 
not pay any heed to these statements if they had 
been from an anti-Administration paper; but 
they come, as I say, from the special organ of 
the Administration. Among other things this 
correspondence shows that an individual desig- 
nated by the initials M. P., purporting to convey 
a special message from the President to the 
German Embassy, reported: 

"i. The note to England will go in any event, 
whether Germany answers satisfactorily or not 
[the question of attacks by German submarines]. 

"2. Should it be possible to settle satisfactorily 
the Lusitania case, the President will bind him- 
self to carry the protest against England through 
to the uttermost. 

"3. The continuance of the difference with 
Germany over the Lusitcmia case is 'embarrass- 



ing' for the President in carrying out the protest 
against England. 

"4. The President intimated his willingness to 
discuss the note to Germany [the note of July 
2 ist which remains unanswered] with M. P., 
and eventually so to influence it that there will 
be an agreement for its reception and also to be 
ready to influence the press 'through a wink.' 

"The President also openly declared that he 
could hardly hope for a positive statement that 
the submarine warfare would be discontinued." 

Furthermore, the report was that the Presi- 
dent, through M. P., "wishes to have the trend 
of the German note before the note is officially 
sent, and declares himself ready, before the an- 
swer is drafted, to discuss it with M. P. so as to 
secure an agreement for its reception." 

Now, the action of the President since these 
exposures were made shows that M. P. either 
spoke by direction of the President or possessed 
the gifts of mind-reading and prophecy; for the 
agreement he purported to convey to the German 
Ambassador from the President has since been 
carried out to the letter. Germany has never 
made any atonement for the Lusitania case, but 
when England had destroyed its submarines 
around the British Isles, and when Germany was 
in consequence helpless to go on with this kind of 
warfare, it then consented to abandon it, eight 



months after the President had first warned 
them on the subject during which eight months 
it had sunk ship after ship in defiance of the 
President's warning, treating with the contempt- 
uous indifference they deserved the successive 
notes which the President continued sending as 
substitutes for action. As soon as the President 
had received this make-believe concession, he did 
what M. P. had assured the German Ambassador 
would be done. He sent a strong note to Eng- 
land. This note was trumpeted as showing that 
the President was taking the same action against 
Germany as against England. The statement 
was nonsense. Interference with commerce is 
in no sense whatever comparable with the hein- 
ousness of murder on the high seas. The contro- 
versy with Great Britain was a controversy as to 
commerce, as to property. The controversy with 
Germany was a controversy of humanity con- 
cerning the protection of innocent men, women 
and children from murder on the ocean. Presi- 
dent Wilson was making good the promise which 
M. P. had alleged the President had forwarded 
through him, and it was being done at the ex- 
pense of humanity and at the expense of our rep- 
utation for good faith and courage. All that 
remains to be seen is whether Mr. Wilson will 
now fulfill entirely the promise of M. P. to the 
German Ambassador and carry out this policy 



against England, on which he has embarked, "to 
the uttermost." 

But this is not all. For a year and a quarter 
the President had not only kept silent over the 
hideous wrong inflicted on Belgium in and after 
the violation of its neutrality by Germany, but 
had publicly stated that as regards this violation 
of neutrality, this conflict between right and 
wrong, it was our duty to be "neutral not only in 
word, but in thought." There was no question 
as to what had been done. The Chancellor of 
the German Empire on August 3rd, 1914, stated 
that in invading Belgium, Germany had com- 
mitted "a breach of international law" and had 
declined "to respect the neutrality of Belgium," 
and that he admitted "the wrong which we are 
now committing." Yet in spite of this declara- 
tion, and of our inaction, the President, through 
the Secretary of State, in his note to England 
used the following expressions: "The task of 
championing the integrity of neutral rights which 
have received the sanction of the civilized world 
against the lawless conduct of belligerents, the 
United States unhesitatingly assumes and to the 
accomplishment of that task it will devote its en- 
ergies." It is literally astounding that any hu- 
man being could have been guilty of the forget- 
fulness or effrontery of such a statement. As 
has been well said, it is odious hypocrisy to pose 



as the champion of neutral rights when the al- 
leged champion ignores homicide, but is fearless 
about petty larceny. In his previous correspon- 
dence with Germany, President Wilson had in- 
formed Germany that if it acted as later it actual- 
ly did act, he would hold it to "a strict accounta- 
bility," and he showed by his subsequent conduct 
that in his view these words meant precisely and 
exactly nothing. By his previous conduct he has 
shown that this new announcement about "un- 
hesitatingly championing the integrity of neutral 
rights" amounts to rnuch less than nothing. 

A year and a half ago I pointed out that it was 
the duty of the United States to "champion the in- 
tegrity of the neutral rights" of Belgium (which 
had received the sanction of the Hague Conven- 
tions to which the United States was a signatory) 
against the "lawless conduct" of belligerent Ger- 
many. At that time the defenders of Mr. Wilson 
denounced me on the ground that I "wished neu- 
trality violated" and wished the United States to 
ignore its own interests and meddle in something 
which was, financially speaking, not its own af- 
fair. Mr. Wilson himself publicly announced 
that it was not our duty to champion these neu- 
tral rights of Belgium against "the lawless con- 
duct of belligerent" Germany, but that we should 
be neutral, "not only in word, but in thought." 
Yet now, a year later, Mr. Wilson repudiates his 



former position and himself expresses exactly my 
thought and my demand in practically exactly 
my language. Only I meant what I said! 
Whereas Mr. Wilson's acts have shown that he 
did not mean what he said, so far as a nation of 
which he was afraid was concerned. The dif- 
ference is that having caused our nation to shirk 
its duty to others, having caused it to shirk its 
duty when its own citizens were murdered, so 
long as the offender was a strong and ruthless 
nation, one with a large voting strength of its 
former citizens in this country, he now valiantly 
asserts, against a nation whose representatives 
have no voting strength in this country and 
which he believes can with impunity be defied, 
rights as regards cargoes of merchandise upon 
which he did not dare to insist when the point at 
issue was the slaughter of women and children ; 
whereas I ask that we stand up for the wronged 
and the weak against the strength of evil tri- 
umphant, and that while we defend our property 
rights, we even more strongly defend the lives of 
our men and children, and the lives and honor of 
our women. 

As regards Belgium, Mr. Wilson has played 
the part which 1900 years ago was played by the 
Levite towards the wayfarer who fell among 
thieves near Jericho. He now improves on the 
conduct of the Levite; for he comes to an under- 


standing with the plunderer of the wayfarer and 
in his interest endeavors to browbeat the nations 
which (however mixed their motives) did in ac- 
tual fact endeavor to play the part of the Good 
Samaritan towards unhappy Belgium. 

Mr. Wilson, a year later, has finally adopted 
my principle about preparedness, although he has 
sought to apply it in a half-hearted and inefficient 
manner; a year after I denounced peace-at-any- 
price, he followed suit, quoting the verses of 
Ezekiel which for months I had been quoting; a 
year after I had attacked hyphenated American- 
ism Mr. Wilson followed suit at least before 
the Colonial Dames ; and now he accepts my doc- 
trine of America's duty to neutral nations, which 
a year ago he stoutly opposed. But he applies it 
only as regards American dollars, and only in 
relation to nations who can be trusted not to be 
rude. I believe it should be applied as regards 
American dollars, but even more as regards 
American lives, and that it should first and most 
stoutly be asserted as regards the chief and most 
formidable offender. 

Come back to the case of the Lusitania! 
When that ship was sunk scores of women and 
children, including American women and chil- 
dren, paid with their lives the penalty of a brutal 
and murderous attack by a warship which was 
acting in pursuance of the settled policy of the 



German Government. President Wilson sat su- 
pine and complacent, making on the following 
night his celebrated statement about a nation "be- 
ing too proud to fight," a statement that under 
the circumstances could only be taken as meaning 
that the murder of American women and children 
would be accepted by American men as justify- 
ing nothing more than empty declamation. 
These men, women and children of the Lusitania 
were massacred because the German government 
believed that the Wilson administration did not 
intend to back up its words with deeds. The re- 
sult showed that they were right in their belief. 
Eight months have gone by since then. Ameri- 
can ships were sunk and torpedoed before and 
afterward; other American lives were lost; and 
the President wrote other notes upon the subject ; 
but he never pressed the Lusitania case; and the 
only explanation must be found in his fear lest 
the Germans might refuse to disavow their ac- 
tion. Even the disavowal in the case of the 
Arabic came only when the last possibility of 
profit to Germany by killings that extended to 
neutrals had vanished. President Wilson had 
done nothing beyond uttering prettily phrased 
platitudes about abstract morality without any 
relation to action. 

On July 2 ist last in a formal note he asked of 
Germany a disavowal and promise of indemnity 



for the Lusitania. This was the note which M. 
P. purported to explain in the quotation above 
given. If the explanation he gave to the German 
Ambassador did not represent President Wil- 
son's intentions, then there is absolutely no ex- 
planation of the fact that for six months after 
that note was sent there was no answer from 
Germany and no second demand made for an an- 
swer. The subject was renewed only when Ger- 
many found that her submarine warfare had 
failed, and that it was worth her while to pretend 
to abandon it if thereby she could get the United 
States to play her game against England, France 
and Belgium. Germany believed, seemingly with 
reason, that in return for a pretended concession 
to President Wilson, the latter would play Ger- 
many's game against England. And this move- 
ment was only halted (whether temporarily or 
not we can not now say) by the revelations in 
January of the complicity of the German Em- 
bassy in the plots against our munition plants. 

Apparently President Wilson has believed that 
the American people would permanently forget 
their dead and would slur over the dishonor and 
disgrace to the United States by that basest of 
all the base pleas of cowardly souls, which finds 
expression in the statement: "Oh, well, any- 
how the President kept us out of war!" The 
people who make this plea assert with qua- 



vering voices that they "are behind the Presi- 
dent." So they are; well behind him. The far- 
ther away from the position of duty and honor 
and hazard he has backed, the farther behind him 
these gentry have stood or run. "Stand by the 
President" yes, while the President is right ; and 
stand against him when he is wrong. In '56 and 
'60 the only way to stand by Lincoln was to stand 
against Pierce and Buchanan as Lincoln did. 
If after the firing on Sumter, Lincoln had im- 
mediately in a speech declared that the friends 
of the Union might be "too proud to fight," and 
had spent the next four months in exchanging 
"firm" diplomatic notes with Jefferson Davis, he 
would have received the enthusiastic support of 
the ardent adherents of peace and we would 
now have had no country. 

The German press, which is sometimes appal- 
lingly frank, has with refreshing simplicity given 
us the exact German view when, in commenting 
on Mr. Wilson's note to England, the Koelnische 
Volkszeitung recently remarked: "If America 
had from the first energetically taken the posi- 
tion against Great Britain now adopted, there 
would have been no submarine war, no sinking 
of the Lusitania or the Arabic." 

Evidently this German paper is in cordial 
agreement with M. P., and it will be impossible 
to desire better proof of the deliberate purpose 



with which the murderous assault on the Lusi- 
tania was contrived, and of the German belief 
that this murderous assault has achieved its pur- 
pose in terrorizing President Wilson into his 
present action about England, action which Dr. 
Dernburg, speaking not only for Germany, but 
for the hyphenated American voters of our own 
country, eulogizes as showing that Mr. Wilson is 
entitled to reward. So he is except from Amer- 
icans! But Dr. Delbrueck, also speaking for 
Germany, warns Mr. Wilson that his note against 
England must be followed by v action if he hopes 
to retain German good will. The insolence with 
which the German government browbeats the 
timid folk at Washington is matched by the ex- 
treme cynicism of its brutality. It coerces 
wretched Belgians to make munitions with which 
to kill their own countrymen and protests against 
Americans making munitions to rescue Belgium 
from the murderers. And there are Americans 
so base as to advocate yielding to such threats 
and protests; while Mr. Henry Ford takes some 
of his fellow pacifists on a peace-junket to Eu- 
rope, in the effort to bring about a peace more 
degrading to humanity than the worst war a 
peace which would consecrate successful wrong, 
and trample righteousness in the dust. 

As the direct result of our failure to act in 
the case of the Lusitania, came another hide- 



ous misdeed, the sinking of the Ancona. Over 
two hundred persons, most of them women 
and children, were murdered as a result of this 
submarine attack on a helpless passenger ship. 
Nine of those murdered were Americans. Of 
course, it is a matter of absolutely no consequence 
whether the deed was done by an Austrian or a 
German submarine. Remember the Lusitania! 
The deaths of these poor women and children on 
the Ancona, and on the various other ships that 
were sunk under similar circumstances, were due 
to the cowardice of our action, of the action of 
the American people through its Administra- 
tion, in the case of the Lusitania. If our gov- 
ernment had acted as it ought to have acted 
as all of us who believe in American 
honor demanded that it should act, at the 
time there would be no Ancona case now, 
no further murders of women and children on 
the high seas. And yet the Administration sat 
eagerly, nervously waiting for some pretext, 
some trivial excuse which would enable it to avoid 
action ; and it acted at all only when the Austrian 
Government answered with such rude insolence 
as to force some action ; and even then, the Presi- 
dent did not dare act about the Lusitania case. 
The Austrian vote in this country is small and 
divided, and Austria cannot menace us in military 
manner. Neither statement applies to Germany 



and the professional German- Americans ; and ac- 
cordingly President Wilson turns from the first 
and most formidable offender, the offender of 
whom he is afraid, and seeks to distract attention 
by action against Austria, of whom he is much 
less afraid. About the Lusitania the President 
wrote note after note, each filled with lofty expres- 
sions and each sterile in its utter futility, because 
it did not mean action, and Germany knew it did 
not mean action. Then came the Ancona as the 
direct result of this policy of shuffling timidity 
and delay, just as the Lusitania itself was the 
direct result of the policy of "watchful waiting," 
that is, of shuffling timidity and delay, in Mex- 
ico. And after the sinking of the Ancona came 
the sinking of the Persia, and after the sinking 
of the Persia the proofs of the activity of Ger- 
many's official representative, Von Papen, in the 
campaign of murder and arson against our mu- 
nition factories. I blame the Administration, but 
I blame even more the American people, who 
stand supine and encourage their representatives 
to permit unchecked the murder of women and 
children and other non-combatants rather than 
to take a policy which might, forsooth, jeopardize 
the life of some strong fighting man. 

The Administration has recently devised a 
campaign button with a new campaign catch 
phrase "safety first." It certainly expresses 



their attitude in putting honor and duty in the 
second place, or, rather, in no place at all. 
Safety first! This is the motto on which in a 
shipwreck those men act who crowd into the life- 
boats ahead of the women and children although 
they do not afterward devise a button to com- 
memorate this feat. There could be no more 
ignoble motto for a high-spirited and duty-lov- 
ing nation. The countrymen of Washington and 
Lincoln, of Jackson and Grant, of Lee and Farra- 
gut, ought to hang their heads in shame at seeing 
their representatives in Washington thinking not 
about the slaughtered women and children, not 
about the wrongs done to the helpless and the 
dangers to our own people, but only about the 
best way to escape from the situation without 
being required to show either courage or patriot- 
ism. It is an evil day for a people when it per- 
mits its chosen representatives to practise the 
gospel of cowardice and of utter and selfish 
abandonment of duty. Let our countrymen re- 
member that this policy of dishonor and discredit 
does not even secure the safety which it seeks. 
The policy of the Administration has not invited 
respect. It has invited murder. It has not se- 
cured peace which, by the way, probably could 
have been secured by a policy of self-respecting 
strength and firmness. Peace is now in jeopardy, 
because weakness and timidity invite the constant 



repetition of actions which will in time goad any 
nation into war. 

Nor is this all. Germany and Austria have 
not only been carrying on war against us on the 
high seas. They have carried on war against us 
here in our own land. They have, through their 
representatives, encouraged strikes and outrages 
in our factories. It has been published in the 
press that in their consulates and in the foreign 
papers controlled or influenced by these consul- 
ates the Administration's ruling about "dual cit- 
izenship" has been printed as a warning to im- 
migrant workingmen that they were still citizens 
of their old countries and had to obey the direc- 
tions of their former governmental representa- 
tives. Dr. Joseph Goricar, formerly Austro- 
Hungarian consul at San Francisco, has resigned 
because he declined to take part in the organized 
movement to destroy munition plants in this 
country. This movement is simply war ; a war of 
assassination instead o-f open battle, but war 
nevertheless ; and it is the direct result of the Ad- 
ministration's supine position. 

Surely one of our first needs is self-defence 
against the conspirators of the torch and the 
bomb. The men who are engaged in this work 
are a great deal worse than ordinary alien ene- 
mies. The newspapers that apologize for their 
deeds or condone them should promptly be ex- 


eluded from the mails. The men behind them, 
the high governmental authorities of Germany 
and Austria, are engaged in a much more vicious 
warfare in this country than if they were actu- 
ally resorting to open force of arms. But Presi- 
dent Wilson has been seeking to placate, not only 
these contemptuously hostile foreign nations, but 
also the men nominally citizens of this country, 
but really loyal to the foreign countries now hos- 
tile to us. He has by his actions encouraged these 
men to try to turn this country into a kind of 
polyglot boarding-house where any set of alien 
boarders may preach disloyalty and encourage 
treason and murder with impunity. 

It is sickening to have to recapitulate the 
dreadful deeds that have been done during the 
last year and a quarter, while the United States 
sat tamely by. Miss Cavell was killed for deeds 
such as were committed by literally thousands of 
women, North and South, during the Civil War 
in this country; and if either Abraham Lincoln 
or Jefferson Davis had ever dreamed of putting 
any of these women to death, a deafening roar 
of execration would have gone up from the men 
of both sides. But there was no hesitation in 
killing Miss Cavell, and there was no disappro- 
bation expressed by our Administration. Bel- 
gium was blotted out from the list of nations by 
an act which was a more flagrant instance of in- 



ternational wickedness than anything that has 
occurred since the close of the Napoleonic strug- 
gles; but this Administration did not venture to 
speak about it; and all the professional pacifists, 
the men of the stamp of Messrs. Bryan, Jordan 
and Ford, while with sobbing voices they called 
for peace, peace, did not venture even to allude 
to the outrage that had been perpetrated. Re- 
member, there is not the slightest room for hon- 
est question either as to the dreadful, the un- 
speakably hideous, outrages committed on the 
Belgians, or as to the fact that these outrages 
were methodically committed by the express com- 
mand of the German government, in order to ter- 
rorize both the Belgians and among neutrals 
those men who are as cold and timid and selfish 
as our governmental leaders have shown 
themselves to be. Let any man who doubts read 
the statement of an American eye-witness of 
these fearful atrocities, Mr. Arthur H. Gleason, 
in the New York Tribune of Nov. 25, 1915. Ser- 
bia is at this moment passing under the harrow 
of torture and mortal anguish. Now, the Ar- 
menians have been butchered under circum- 
stances of murder and torture and rape that 
would have appealed to an old-time Apache In- 
dian. The Administration can do nothing even if 
it wishes ; for its timid silence about Belgium, its 
cringing fear of acting in the interests of our own 


citizens when killed by Mexicans in Mexico or 
by Germans and Austrians on the high seas, 
would render any wordy protest on its part a 
subject-matter for derision and every one 
knows that it would not venture beyond a wordy 

But in the case of the Armenians some of the 
professional pacifists and praisers of neutrality 
have ventured to form committees and speak 
about not act about the "Armenian atroci- 
ties." These individuals did not venture to say 
anything about the Belgian atrocities; but they 
are willing to speak, although of course not to 
act, on behalf of Armenia. The explanation is 
simple. They were afraid of Germany; they 
were afraid of the German vote. But there is no 
Turkish vote, and they are not afraid of Turkey. 

Under circumstances such as these it is the last 
note of unpatriotic folly for the pacifists of this 
country to chatter about peace, when they neither 
venture to stand up for righteousness nor to fight 
for real preparedness, so as to enable the United 
States to insure justice for itself and to demand 
justice for others. Mr. Taft accepts the presi- 
dency of the "League to Enforce Peace," and 
must of course know that unless the United States 
had an army of two or three million men it could 
do nothing at all toward "enforcing peace" in a 
crisis like the present world war; and yet, ac- 



cording to the press, he states that even a stand- 
ing army of a couple of hundred thousand men 
means "militarism" and "aggression" and is to 
be opposed. This country will never be able to 
find its own soul or to play a part of high no- 
bility in the world until it realizes the full extent 
of the damage done to it, materially and morally, 
by the ignoble peace propaganda for which these 
men and the others like them, whether capital- 
ists, labor leaders, college professors, politicians 
or publicists, are responsible. 

The United States has not a friend in the 
world. Its conduct, under the leadership of its 
official representatives, for the last five years and, 
above all, for the last three years, has deprived 
it of the respect and has secured for it the con- 
tempt of every one of the great civilized nations 
of mankind. Peace treaties and windy Fourth- 
of-July eloquence and the base materialism 
which seeks profit as an incident to the abandon- 
ment of duty will not help it now. For five years 
our rulers at Washington have believed that all 
this people cared for was easy money, absence 
of risk and effort, and sounding platitudes which 
were not reduced to action. We have so acted 
as to convince other nations that in very truth we 
are too proud to fight; and the man who is too 
proud to fight is in practice always treated as just 
proud enough to be kicked. We have held our 

J 35 


peace when our women and children were slain. 
We have turned away our eyes from the sight of 
our brother's woe. 

All of Mr. Henry Ford's companions, in the 
peace propaganda, led by gentlemen of the Bryan 
and Jordan type, could with profit study the 
thoughts expressed by Mr. E. S. Martin when he 

"Nobody is much good who has not in him 
some idea, some ideal, that he cares more for 
than he does for life, even though it is life allevi- 
ated by the Ford motor. 

"You help to make life pleasant, but war, 
Henry, helps to make it noble; and if it is not 
noble it does not matter a damn, Henry, whether 
it is pleasant or not. That is the old lesson of 
Calvary repeated at Mons and Ypres and Liege 
and Namur. 

"Whether there are more people in the world 
or less, whether they are fat or lean, whether 
there are Fords or oxen, makes no vital differ- 
ence ; but whether men shall be willing to die for 
what they believe in makes all the difference be- 
tween a pigsty and Paradise. Not by bread 
alone, Henry, shall men live." 

If the people have not vision, they shall surely 
perish. No man has a right to live who has not 
in his soul the power to die nobly for a great 
cause. Let abhorrence be for those who wage 



wanton or wicked wars, who with ruthless vio- 
lence oppress the upright and the unoffending. 
Pay all honor to the preachers of peace who put 
righteousness above peace. But shame on the 
creatures who would teach our people that it is 
anything but base to be unready and unable to 
defend right, even at need by the sternest of all 
tests, the test of righteous war, war waged by a 
high-couraged people with souls attuned to the 
demands of a lofty ideal. 

Have these professional pacifists lost every 
quality of manhood? Are they ignorant of the 1 
very meaning of nobility of soul? Their words 
are an affront to the memory of Washington, 
their deeds a repudiation of the life-work of Lin- 
coln. Are they steeped in such sordid material- 
ism that they do not feel one thrill as they read 
Edward Everett Male's "The Man Without a 
Country"? It is strange indeed that even their 
cold and timid hearts should be unstirred by 
Lowell's homely lines:- 

Better that all our ships an' all their crews 
Should sink to rot in ocean's dreamless ooze, 
Each torn flag wavin' challenge as it went, 
An' each dumb gun a brave man's monu- 

Than seek sech peace ez only cowards crave ; 
Give me the peace of dead men or of brave. 



DURING the past year the activities of our 
professional pacifists have been exercised 
almost exclusively on behalf of hideous interna- 
tional iniquity. They have struck hands with 
those evil enemies of America, the hyphenated 
Americans, and with the greediest representa- 
tives of those Americans whose only god is 
money. They have sought to make this country 
take her stand against right that was downtrod- 
den, and in favor of wrong that seemed likely to 
be successful. Every man or woman who has 
clamored for peace without daring to say that 
peace would be a crime unless Belgium was re- 
stored to her own people and the repetition of 
such wrongdoing as that from which she has suf- 
fered provided against, has served the Devil and 
not the Lord. Every man or woman who in the 
name of peace now advocates the refusal on the 
part of the United States to furnish arms and 
munitions of war to those nations who have had 
the manliness to fight for the redressing of Bel- 



gium's wrongs, is serving the Devil and not the 

As for the hyphenated Americans, among the 
very many lessons taught by the last year has 
been the lesson that the effort to combine fealty 
to the flag of an immigrant's natal land with 
fealty to the flag of his adopted land, in practice 
means not merely disregard of, but hostility to, 
the flag of the United States. When two flags 
are hoisted on the same pole, one is always 
hoisted undermost. The hyphenated American 
always hoists the American flag undermost. The 
American citizen of German birth or descent who 
is a good American and nothing but a good 
American, and whose whole loyalty is undivid- 
edly given to this country and its flag, stands on 
an exact level with every other American, and is 
entitled to precisely the same consideration and 
treatment as if his ancestors had come over on 
the Mayflower or had settled on the banks of the 
James three centuries ago. I am partly of Ger- 
man blood, and I am exactly as proud of this 
blood as of the blood of other strains that flows 
in my veins. But I am an American, and noth- 
ing else! 

The German-Americans who call themselves 
such and who have agitated as such during the 
past year, have shown that they are not Ameri- 
cans at all, but Germans in America. Their ac- 



tion has been hostile to the honor and the interest 
of this country. The man who sings "Deutsch- 
land iiber Alles" means exactly what he sings. 
He means that he puts Deutschland above the 
American flag, above the honor of the United 
States, and above the well-being of Americans as 
a whole. 

The Americans of German origin have been a 
peculiarly valuable element in our population. I 
believe that they are, in overwhelming propor- 
tion, thoroughgoing Americans. As I have said, 
I am partly of German blood. A large number 
of my closest friends, a large number of the men 
whom I most respect and honor in American 
life, are Americans of German parentage or de- 
scent or of German birth. One such American, 
a descendant of one of Blucher's colonels, sat in 
my Cabinet ; and he sat beside another American, 
a descendant of one of Napoleon's brothers. 
But each was an American and nothing else! 
The scientific book of which I was proudest, I 
wrote in partnership with a close friend, a natu- 
ralist who was with me in Africa; he is of Ger- 
man parentage ; but he is an American and noth- 
ing else. The man who was closest to me politi- 
cally during the ten years of my service as 
Governor and President was of German parent- 
age; but he was absolutely straight American. 
Some of the best men in my regiment, including 



my orderly and one captain, were of German 
birth or descent; but they were Americans, pure 
and simple. Among the clergymen, philanthro- 
pists, publicists, good citizens of all kinds, with 
whom I work in heartiest sympathy, an unusually 
large proportion are of German descent and 
some of German birth. I get on with these men 
and women exactly as well as I do with the men 
and women of Colonial American descent. But 
I get on with them because they are Americans 
and nothing else. 

I stand for the American citizen of German 
birth or descent, precisely as I stand for any 
other American. But I do not stand at all for 
the German-American, or any other kind of 
hyphenated American. When I was President I 
was brought into close contact with many officers 
of the army and navy. Col. George Washington 
Goethals has done the best work done by any 
American of recent years. He is of Dutch par- 
entage. But he is no. more a Dutch-American 
than I am. He is just plain American. Among 
my military and naval aides were Lee, Grant, 
Sheridan and Osterhaus, all descended from 
generals who fought in the Union or Confed- 
erate Armies. Two of them were of old Revo- 
lutionary stock, Scotch or English. The grand- 
father of the third was born in Ireland, and the 
grandfather of the fourth in Germany. But they 



were all Americans and nothing else. General 
Wood, of Revolutionary stock, started Cuba on 
the road to self-government; General Barry, of 
Irish parentage, commanded the army that res- 
cued Cuba from revolution ; and one was exactly 
as good an American as the other. Among the 
admirals upon whom I leaned were Dewey, 
Evans, Taylor, and Cameron Winslow, of Revo- 
lutionary stock; and O'Neil and Schroeder, one 
of Irish and the other of German descent; and 
the last two were exactly as good Americans as 
the other four. It would have been a crime as 
well as a calamity to endeavor to divide all these 
and all the other fine and gallant officers of our 
army and navy on lines of birth or national 
origin or creed. It is no less a crime and a 
calamity to attempt to divide our citizens as a 
whole along such lines. 

There was never a better American than Jacob 
Riis, who was born in Denmark and whom I 
always thought about the best American I ever 
knew. The Americans in whom I believe in- 
clude Jews and Catholics and Protestants. They 
include men of old native American descent and 
other men of recent German, English, French, 
Irish, Italian, Scandinavian, Magyar and Sla- 
vonic descent ; but all are Americans entitled to be 
treated as such, and claiming to be nothing else. 
I as emphatically condemn opposition to a good 



American who happens to be of German birth 
or descent, because of that fact, as I condemn 
action by such a man designed to serve not the 
United States, but some foreign power. I speak 
against the German-American who seeks to use 
his American citizenship in the interest of a 
foreign power and who thereby shows himself 
an unworthy American. I should speak exactly 
as quickly against the American of English or 
French or Scandinavian or Irish descent who 
was guilty of similar conduct. The following 
letter which I recently wrote explains itself: 

" I am very sorry but I cannot sign that 

appeal. I do not approve of it. You are asking 
Americans to proclaim themselves Anglo-Ameri- 
cans, and to sympathize with England on the 
ground that England is the mother-land, and in 
order to make what you call 'hands across the 
sea' a matter of living policy. I do not believe 
that this is the right attitude for Americans to 
take. England is not my mother-land any more 
than Germany is my father-land. My mother- 
land and father-land and my own land are all 
three of them the United States. I am among 
those Americans whose ancestors include men 
and women from many different European coun- 
tries. The proportion of Americans of this type 
will steadily increase. I do not believe in hyphen- 



ated Americans. I do not believe in German- 
Americans or Irish- Americans ; and I believe just 
as little in English-Americans. I do not ap- 
prove of American citizens of German descent 
forming organizations to force the United States 
into practical alliance with Germany because 
their ancestors came from Germany. Just as lit- 
tle do I believe in American citizens of English 
descent forming leagues to force the United 
States into an alliance with England because 
their ancestors came from England. We Ameri- 
cans are a separate people. We are separated 
from, although akin to, many European peoples. 
The old Revolutionary stock was predominantly 
English, but by no means exclusively so; for 
many of the descendants of the Revolutionary 
New Yorkers, Pennsylvanians and Georgians 
have, like myself, strains of Dutch, French, 
Scotch, Irish, Welsh and German blood in their 
veins. During the century and a quarter that 
has elapsed since we became a nation, there has 
been far more immigration from Germany and 
Ireland and probably from Scandinavia than 
there has been from England. We have a right 
to ask all of these immigrants and the sons of 
these immigrants that they become Americans 
and nothing else; but we have no right to ask 
that they become transplanted or second-rate 
Englishmen. Most emphatically I myself am not. 



an Englishman-once-removed! I am straight 
United States! 

"In international matters we should treat each 
nation on its conduct and without the slightest 
reference to the fact that a larger or smaller 
proportion of its blood flows in the veins of our 
own citizens. I have publicly and emphatically 
taken ground for Belgium and I wish that the 
United States would take ground for Belgium, 
because I hold that this is our duty, and that 
Germany's conduct toward Belgium demands 
that we antagonize her in this matter, and that 
we emphatically and in practical shape try to see 
that Belgium's wrongs are redressed. Because 
of the British attitude toward Belgium I have 
publicly and emphatically approved of her atti- 
tude, that is of Great Britain's conduct in living 
up to her obligations by defending Belgium, even 
at the cost of war. But I am not doing this on 
any ground that there is any 'hands across the 
sea' alliance, explicit or implicit, with England. 
I have never used in peace or in war any such 
expression as 'hands across the sea,' and I em- 
phatically disapprove of what it signifies save in 
so far as it means cordial friendship between us 
and every other nation that acts in accordance 
with the standards that we deem just and right. 
On this ground all Americans, no matter what 
their race origins, ought to stand together. It is 


not just that they should be asked to stand with 
any foreign power on the ground of community 
of origin between some of them and the citizens 
of that foreign power. [Signed Theodore 

We of America form a new nationality. We 
are by blood, and we ought to be by feeling, akin 
to but distinct from every nationality of Europe. 
If our various constituent strains endeavor to 
keep themselves separate from the rest of their 
fellow-countrymen by the use of hyphens, they 
are doing all in their power to prevent themselves 
and ourselves from ever becoming a real nation- 
ality at all. 

An American who is loyal to this great Ameri- 
can nation has two duties, and only two, in in- 
ternational matters. In the first place, he is 
bound to serve the honor and the interest of the 
United States. In the second place, he is bound 
to treat all other nations in accordance with their 
conduct at any given time, and in accordance 
with the ultimate needs of mankind at large; and 
not in accordance with the interests of the Euro- 
pean nation from which some or all of his an- 
cestors have come. If he does not act along these 
lines, he is derelict in his duty to his fellow-citi- 
zens and he is guilty of betraying the interests 
of his country. 

As for the persons who base their actions upon 


greed in such a crisis as this, little needs to be 
said. The beef baron or the representative of the 
cotton interests who wishes to ignore the butch- 
ery of our women and children, and the sinking 
of our ships by German submarines, and to take 
sides against the Allies so that he may make 
money by the sale of cotton and beef, is faithless 
to every consideration of honor and decency. It 
is entirely fitting that the sheer materialist should 
on such an issue stand shoulder to shoulder with 
the professional pacifist, the peace-at-at-any- 
price man, and with his sinister brother, the hy- 
phenated American. These men by their actions 
seek to condone the murder of American men, 
women and children and the trampling of Bel- 
gium into bloody mire. They are false to the 
cause of humanity. They come perilously near 
being treasonable to this country. It is hard to 
decide which is the most abject quality ; the greed 
of the mere materialists or the short-sighted cow- 
ardice of the professional pacifists. As for the 
hyphenated American, he endeavors to serve his 
foreign Fatherland without exposing his own 
wretched carcass to the danger which would 
come to him if he served in the trenches beside 
his fellow-countrymen who have stayed at home 
and who at least pretend to no divided allegi- 

I am not willing to admit that this nation has 


no duty to other nations. Yet the action of this 
Government during the past year can only be de- 
fended on the assumption that we have no such 
duty to others. 

Of course, it is a defensible, although not a 
lofty, position to deny that there is such a duty. 
But it is wholly indefensible to proclaim that there 
is such a duty and then in practice to abandon it. 
It is a base thing to propose to pass all-inclusive 
arbitration treaties, and to pass the thirty-odd 
all-inclusive commission peace treaties that ac- 
tually have been passed during the last two years, 
and yet not to dare to say one word when the 
Hague Conventions which we have already 
signed are violated by the strong at the expense 
of the weak. I agree with the abstract theory 
of the men responsible for all these various treat- 
ies ; for this theory is to the effect that America 
owes a duty to the world, to humanity at large. 
I disagree with their practice, because I believe 
that we should in fact perform this duty, instead 
of merely talking about it in the abstract and 
then shamefully abandoning it the moment it be- 
comes concrete. 

As a nation, during the past eighteen months 
we have refused to prepare to defend our own 
rights by our own strength. We have also re- 
fused to say one word against international 
wrongdoing of the most dreadful character. We 



have refused to carry out the promises we made 
in the Hague Conventions. We have been guilty 
of all these mean sins of omission, we are official- 
ly told, in the hope that the Administration may 
secure the empty honor of being a go-between 
when the belligerents decide to make peace. The 
actions of the Administration have tended to 
create such conditions that the "peace" shall be 
in the interest of the wrongdoer, and at the ex- 
pense of his helpless victim. It is not right that 
this nation should be asked thus to shirk its duty 
to itself and to others in order to secure such a 
worthless function for any person whatsoever. 
Our plain duty was to stand against wrong, to 
help in stamping out the wrong, to help in pro- 
tecting the innocent who had been wronged. 
This duty we have ignobly shirked. Nor is there 
any immediate probability that the empty honor 
which the Administration seeks will be granted 
to it. If it were, then doubtless there would be 
shallow Americans who would trumpet the fact 
as somehow creditable to America. But there is 
not another nation by which the United States un- 
der such conditions would be treated as having 
played any part excepting that of a dupe ; or else 
the part of a cold and selfish intriguer, willing to 
sacrifice the welfare of humanity to the gratifica- 
tion of personal vanity. 

Let our people keep their eyes fixed on the case 


of Belgium. Belgium had faithfully observed 
her international obligations. She had fulfilled 
her duties in a spirit of loyal impartiality. She 
had neglected no opportunity to maintain her 
neutrality and to cause it to be respected by oth- 
ers. The attack upon her independence by Ger- 
many was a flagrant violation of the law of na- 
tions and a crime against humanity. It has been 
carried out with inhuman severity. There has 
been no more abhorrent spectacle in history than 
the revenge visited upon Belgium for her daunt- 
less defence of national rights and international 
obligations. In all the grim record of the last 
year this is the overshadowing accomplishment 
of evil. The American who defends the action 
taken against Belgium, or who fails to condemn 
it, is unworthy to live in a free country, or to as- 
sociate with men of lofty soul and generous tem- 
per. Deep though the hurts are which have been 
inflicted upon civilization by the sacrifice of mil- 
lions of lives among the bravest and best of the 
men of Europe, yet deeper and more lasting is 
the wound given by the blow struck at interna- 
tional law and international righteousness in the 
destruction of Belgium. This crime of Germany 
was a crime against international good faith, a 
crime against the soul of international law and 
fair dealing. It is to this act of unforgivable 
treachery that every succeeding infamy is to be 



traced; from terrorism and indiscriminate 
slaughter on land to terrorism and indiscriminate 
massacre of non-combatants at sea. And this 
crime of Germany has been condoned by the 
recreant silence of neutral nations, and above 
all by the recreant silence of the United States 
and its failure to live bravely up to its solemn 

I am not speaking now of the hideous atroci- 
ties committed in Belgium and Northern France, 
as shown in such reports as that of the committee 
of which Lord Bryce was Chairman. I am not 
now speaking of the killing of non-combatants, 
including scores of women and children, in Eng- 
land and Italy, by air-craft and sea-craft. I deal 
only with facts as to which there is no dispute. 
In its broad outlines, what has occurred in the in- 
vasion of Belgium is not susceptible of dispute. 
The action being taken at this moment in Belgium 
is spoken of as follows by the Norddeutsche All- 
gemeine Zeitung in replying to German critics 
who were actually asserting that Belgium was 
being too mercifully treated. The German de- 
fence of Germany's "merciful" action in Belgium 
is as follows (condensed; the italics are my own) : 

"The German government is acting in Bel- 
gium with the object of preventing the safety and 
health of our army from being imperiled by fam- 
ine and disease behind it. For this reason the 


German government has gladly consented to food 
being supplied to the starving population by neu- 
tral countries in order to insure that our own 
troops shall not suffer privation. No more coal 
will be allowed to be taken from Belgian mines 
than will suffice for the bare needs of the shiver- 
ing people and enable the industrious laboriously 
to exist. It is the right of the conqueror and our 
duty toward our own army to enable the con- 
quered territory to produce the sums which with- 
out prejudice to a later war indemnity are with- 
drawn from the country in the shape of contri- 
butions. We demand at present from Belgium a 
payment of one hundred and twenty millions of 
dollars to be made in instalments within one 
year. This sum represents the limit of the pres- 
ent capacity of the country, which has been 
grievously affected by the war. The loss suffered 
by Belgium thus far through actual destruction 
is estimated at a value of more than a billion and 
a quarter of dollars. To this figure we have to 
add the contribution, and the whole amount must 
be earned by Belgium." 

And the ignoble pacifists of the United States 
are at this moment agitating to prevent any ex- 
port of arms and munitions to be used in redeem- 
ing the country which is suffering such hideous 
oppression! There was a period when Ameri- 
cans were proud of standing for Kossuth and for 



Garibaldi, when they subscribed for those who 
had suffered from wrong in Ireland or Poland, 
when they sympathized with patriots wrongfully 
oppressed in any land. The Americans of a by- 
gone generation who possessed such sympathies 
should turn in their graves at the thought that 
alleged believers in peace now advocate action in 
the interest of these oppressors who have 
trampled on the bodies and seared the souls of the 
men, women and children of peaceful and unof- 
fending Belgium. 

If no duty had been expressly imposed upon 
the United States in this matter, we ought never- 
theless to have acted in accordance with the gen- 
erous instincts of humanity. But as a matter of 
fact such a duty was expressly imposed upon us 
by the Hague Conventions. The Convention, 
signed at The Hague October i8th, lo/)?, 1 begins 
by saying that "His Majesty the German Em- 
peror, King of Prussia," and the other signatory 

1 See pp. 133-140 of "The Hague Conventions and Decla- 
rations" [1915], edited by James Brown Scott. Dr. Scott is 
our foremost international lawyer. He is the head of the 
division of International Law of the Carnegie Endowment 
for International Peace. He has practically proved that he 
is a believer in the peace of righteousness; for he was an 
enlisted man in the American army in the Spanish War, hav- 
ing left his position as Dean of the Los Angeles Law School, 
now the Law School of the University of Southern Cali- 
fornia, in order to serve his country. 



powers, including France, Belgium, Russia and 
the United States, have resolved to conclude a 
Convention laying down clearly the rights and 
duties of neutral powers in case of war on land. 
Article I runs: "The territory of neutral pow- 
ers is inviolable." Article 5 states that a neutral 
power "must not allow belligerents to move 
troops across its territory." Article 10 states 
that "the fact of a neutral power resisting even 
by force attempts to violate its neutrality cannot 
be regarded as a hostile act." Article 7 states 
that "a neutral power is not called upon to pre- 
vent the export or transport on behalf of one or 
other of the belligerents of arms, munitions of 
war or in general of anything which could be of 
use to an army or a fleet." This Convention 
was ratified by Belgium on August 8th, 1910; by 
France on October 7th, 1910; by Germany, the 
United States and Russia on November 27th, 
1909. It has been alleged by individuals anxious 
to excuse us for failure to act in accordance with 
our duty under this Convention that article 20 
recites : "The provisions of the present Conven- 
tion do not apply except between contracting 
powers and then only if all the belligerents are 
parties to the Convention." In the first place 
this objection would be merely technical, even if 
in some other area of the war a belligerent who 
was not a party to the Convention was concerned; 


for of course the Convention must be construed 
with common sense. But even if it is construed 
in the most technical manner, it applies to the 
action taken by Germany in Belgium. This ac- 
tion was taken on August 3d and 4th, 1914. 
Germany was then at war only with France and 
Russia, both of which were signatories to this 
convention. Belgium was a signatory. The 
United States was a signatory. Germany was 
not at war at that time with Servia or Monte- 
negro or England; nor was Austria at war with 
Belgium. When Germany violated the Hague 
Convention to which we were one of the signa- 
tory powers all of the belligerents in the case 
were signers of the Hague Convention. The 
case is technically no less than morally complete. 
A treaty is a promise. The signing powers 
make promises each to the others and each to each 
of the others in such a case as this. Germany 
had promised France, Belgium, the United States 
and Russia that it would treat the territory of a 
neutral power (in this case Belgium) as invio- 
lable. Germany violated this promise. Belgium 
had promised Germany, the United States, 
France and Russia that it would not permit such 
violation of its neutrality as Germany committed. 
Belgium kept its promise. Germany had prom- 
ised that if a neutral power (Belgium) resisted 
by force such an attempt as it, Germany, made 


to violate its neutrality, Germany would not re- 
gard such an act as hostile. Germany broke this 
promise. When Germany thus broke her prom- 
ises, we broke our promise by failing at once to 
call her to account. The treaty was a joint and 
several guarantee, and it was the duty of every 
signer to take action when it was violated ; above 
all it was the duty of the most powerful neutral, 
the United States. 

Germany promised that she would not call 
upon any neutral power to prevent the export or 
transport of arms or munitions of war on behalf 
of any belligerent. Germany broke this promise 
when she made precisely such a demand upon us. 
This was a flagrant act of bad faith on the part 
of Germany. It is especially flagrant in view of 
the fact, testified to me by one of the representa- 
tives at the Hague Conferences, and well known 
to all connected with the Hague Conferences, 
that this article was insisted upon by Germany. 
Mr. Charles Noble Gregory, the Chairman of the 
Standing Committee on international law of the 
American Bar Association, in a capital piece set- 
ting forth the right of our citizens to sell muni- 
tions of war to any belligerent power, mentions 
the same fact. He states that one of our Hague 
representatives told him that the chief interest of 
the German delegates seemed to be in securing 
this article, because the Krupp works at Essen 



were the chief purveyors of munitions of war to 
foreign powers. 

A representative of a great American arms 
manufactory informed me recently that they had 
been about to abandon their work prior to the 
beginning of this war, because the Germans sys- 
tematically endeavored to undersell them in 
every country. It has been the settled policy of 
Germany to drive all other countries out of the 
business of manufacturing arms and supplies be- 
cause, of course, if this were once substantially 
accomplished, the rest of the world would be com- 
pletely helpless before Germany; and Germany 
has made it evident that she knows no such thing 
as international morality and looks upon all other 
nations, including the United States, merely as 
possible prey. The Americans who are now 
striving to prevent the sale of munitions of war 
to the countries endeavoring to secure the re- 
dress of Belgium's wrongs, that is, the Allied 
Powers, are playing the game of a ruthlessly 
militaristic and anti- American Germany against 
their own country as well as against the interests 
of humanity at large. They are profoundly un- 
patriotic from the standpoint of the interests of 
the United States. They are committing the 
gravest possible offence against the cause of in- 
ternational right and of the interest of humanity. 

It was Germany which for decades supplied 


Turkey with the means of keeping the Christians 
of her European and Asiatic provinces in a state 
of dreadful subjection. It was Germany which 
established the artillery in the Belgian forts 
and, as one of the men engaged in the work in- 
formed a friend of mine, the German War Of- 
fice was then furnished with blue-prints of what 
had been done and of the neighboring geography, 
so as to enable the German armies to take the 
forts with the least possible delay and damage. 
Essen has been the center of military supplies to 
belligerents and has exported on an enormous 
scale to belligerents in all the modern wars, mak- 
ing vast profits from this traffic even in the late 
Balkan wars. Germany has consistently fol- 
lowed this course, even when one of the belliger- 
ents alone had access to her markets and the 
other, with which she was nominally in sympathy, 
had no such access. This was shown in the Boer 
War. Among the supplies furnished by Ger- 
many to Great Britain for use against the Boers 
were 108 fifteen pounder quick-firing guns and 
54,000 rounds of ammunition for them; 65,000 
hundredweight of swords, cutlasses, bayonets 
and arms of other sorts; 8,000,000 rounds of 
small-arms' ammunition and 1,000,500 of metal 
cartridge cases other than small-arms' ammuni- 
tion ; and some 27,000 hundredweight of cordite, 
gunpowder, dynamite and the like. In short, 



Germany has thriven enormously on the sale of 
arms to belligerents when she was a neutral ; she 
insisted that such sale be sanctioned by the Hague 
Conventions; she, so far as possible, desires to 
prevent other nations from manufacturing arms; 
and if she is successful in this effort she will have 
taken another stride to world dominion. The 
professional pacifists, hyphenated Americans, 
and beef and cotton- Americans ; in short, all the 
representatives of American mollycoddleism, 
American greed, and downright treachery to 
America, in seeking to prevent shipments of mu- 
nitions to the Allies, are playing the game of a 
brutal militarism against Belgium and against 
their own country. 

Of course, if sales of munitions are improper 
in time of war, they are precisely as improper in 
time of peace, for in time of peace they are made 
only with a view to possible war. To prohibit 
them is to put a premium upon aggressive nations 
manufacturing their own ammunition, for it is 
the non-aggressive nations that do not conduct 
great manufactories for munitions of war. On 
November 13, 1870, Goldwin Smith, who was in 
ardent sympathy with the Germans in their con- 
test with France of that year, wrote to his friend, 
Max Miiller, upholding the propriety of the ac- 
tion of the United States in selling munitions of 
war to France, the right to do which had been in- 



sisted upon by President Grant. He stated that 
the Americans were acting in accordance with 
the right view of international law in refusing 
to prohibit such sales of arms. His letter runs in 
part: "If this were done, a great disadvantage 
would be given against the interests of civiliza- 
tion to the Powers which during peace employed 
their revenues in arming themselves for war in- 
stead of endowing professors. A moral and civ- 
ilized people which had been benefiting humanity 
would be assailed by some French Empire which 
had been collecting chassepots, and when it wants 
to provide itself with the means of defence inter- 
national law would shut up the gunshops." 

In our existing treaties with Germany the 
right to such shipment of arms is explicitly af- 
firmed, as it has also been in the Hague Conven- 
tion from which I have above quoted. The 
American government has always maintained the 
right of its citizens to ship arms to belligerents. 
President Washington, through his Secretary of 
State, Thomas Jefferson, and his Secretary of the 
Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, took this posi- 
tion when France protested against the sale of 
arms to England in 1793, the answer being that 
"the exporting from the United States of war- 
like instruments and military stores is not to be 
interfered with." President Lincoln, through 
his Secretary of State, William H. Seward, took 

1 60 


this view in 1862, when Mexico complained of 
the export of military supplies from the United 
States for the benefit of the French. President 
Lincoln and Secretary Seward sympathized with 
Mexico but explicitly informed Mexico that 
Mexico could not "prescribe to us what merchan- 
dise we shall not sell to French subjects because 
it may be employed in military operations against 
Mexico." President Grant and Secretaries of 
State Henry Clay, Bayard, Elaine, Olney and 
John Hay are among the high officials who have 
publicly taken the same position. 

At this time to alter such a rule during the 
pendency of a state of war to the benefit of one 
of the warlike powers would be to place the 
United States on the side of that power of the 
wrongdoing power and to make it in effect it- 
self a belligerent. The position was correctly 
stated on January 25, 1915, by President Wilson 
through Secretary of State Bryan in a published 
letter which recites that "the duty of a neutral 
to restrict trade in munitions of war has never 
been imposed by international law or by munici- 
pal statute. It has never been the policy of this 
government to prevent the shipment of arms or 
ammunition into belligerent territory;" and in 
response to the German protest it was stated that 
our right to export munitions of war to belliger- 
ents was settled and assured and it was declared 



that our government holds "that any change in 
its own laws of neutrality during the progress of 
a war which would affect unequally the relations 
of the United States with the nations at war 
would be an unjustifiable departure from the 
principles of strict neutrality by which it has 
sought to direct its actions." 

A great expert on international law has said 
"that a system under which a peaceful commer- 
cial state may not, when attacked, use her cash 
and her credits in international markets to equip 
herself for defence is intolerable and in every 
way pernicious. Rules which interfere with such 
a right would tend to give the victory in war to 
the belligerent best prepared at the outset and 
therefore to make it necessary for peaceful na- 
tions to be in a constant state of over-prepared- 
ness." Under the German proposal a well be- 
haved state which was not armed to the teeth 
could not, if wantonly attacked, be allowed to 
equip herself for defence. The American pro- 
fessional pacifists, in accepting the German po- 
sition in this matter, are, as usual, playing into 
the hands of the Powers that believe in unprin- 
cipled aggression. The United States, if sud- 
denly assailed by some great military power, 
would suffer incalculably from the application of 
the doctrine thus advanced by our silly profes- 
sional pacifists. 



The warlike and aggressive nation chooses the 
moment of attack and is fully equipped in ad- 
vance. If the nation assailed cannot replenish 
her supplies from outside, she must always main- 
tain them in time of peace at the highest point or 
else expose herself to ruin. The professional 
pacifists, the cotton-Americans, the beef barons 
and the German- Americans in other words, the 
hyphenated Americans, the greedy materialists 
and all the mollycoddles of both sexes advocate 
the prohibition of the shipment of munitions to 
the Allies who are engaged in fighting Belgium's 
battles. They thereby take a stand which, not 
merely in the concrete case of the moment but in 
all future cases, would immensely benefit power- 
ful and aggressive nations which cynically disre- 
gard the rules of international morality at the 
expense of the peaceful and industrial nations 
which have no thought of aggression and which 
act toward their neighbors with honorable 
good faith. 

From the standpoint of international law, as 
I have shown above, we have the absolute right 
to make such shipments. Washington and Lin- 
coln, in fact all our Presidents and secretaries 
have peremptorily refused to allow this right to 
be questioned. The right has been insisted upon 
by Germany in her own interest, more strongly 
than by any other nation, up to the beginning of 



the present war. It has been exercised by Ger- 
many herself on a larger scale than by any other 
nation up to the time that she herself went to war. 
From the standpoint of morality the justifica- 
tion is even more clear. Selling arms to a bel- 
ligerent may be morally either very right or very 
wrong. This depends absolutely upon the jus- 
tice of the cause in which the arms are to be used. 
This is as true in international as in private 
matters. It is moral and commendable to sell 
arms to a policeman in order that he may put 
down black-handers, white-slavers, burglars, 
highwaymen and other criminals who commit 
acts of violence. It is immoral to sell arms to 
those who are committing or intend to commit 
such acts of violence. In the same way it is thor- 
oughly immoral in any way to help Germany win 
a triumph which would result in making the sub- 
jugation of Belgium perpetual. It is highly 
moral, it is from every standpoint commendable, 
to sell arms which shall be used in endeavoring 
to secure the freedom of Belgium and to create 
a condition of things which will make it impos- 
sible that such a crime against humanity as its 
subjugation by Germany shall ever be repeated, 
whether by Germany or by any other power. 





IN the 33d chapter of the great prophet Eze- 
kiel, the first six verses run as follows: 

1. Again the word of the Lord came unto me, 
saying : 

2. Son of man, speak to the children of thy 
people and say unto them, When I bring the 
sword upon a land, if the people of the land take 
a man of their coasts and set him for the watch- 

3. If when he seeth the sword come upon the 
land, he blow the trumpet and warn the people; 

4. Then whosoever heareth the sound of the 
trumpet and taketh not warning, if the sword 
come and take him away, his blood shall be upon 
his own head; 

5. He heard the sound of the trumpet and 
took not warning, his blood shall be upon him. 
But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul. 

6. But if the watchman see the sword come 
and blow not the trumpet and the people be not 
warned ; if the sword come and take any person 



from among them, he is taken away in his ini- 
quity; but his blood will I require at the watch- 
man's hand. 

I very heartily commend these verses to the 
prayerful consideration of all those in high po- 
litical office, whether Presidents, Secretaries of 
State, or leaders of the Senate and the House at 
Washington; and to all male and female college 
presidents, clergymen, editors and publicists of 
pacifist tendency ; and above all to the sometimes- 
well-meaning souls who have fallen victims to 
the habit of prolonged and excessive indulgence 
in attending universal peace meetings and giving, 
and listening to, lectures on immediate universal 
peace and disarmament. 

Five years have gone by since Mexico, which 
had made no preparedness whatever against for- 
eign war, was thrown into a violent civil war, at- 
tended with circumstances which made it our 
duty to take action, a duty which during the five 
years we, in our turn, have sedulously avoided 
fulfilling in efficient fashion. Eighteen months 
have passed since the great world war that cen- 
ters in Europe burst out with, as its first result, 
the hideous destruction of the Belgian people a 
destruction primarily due to the fact that Bel- 
gium had not prepared against war as Switzer- 
land had prepared. The United States, in con- 
nection with The Hague treaties, had undertaken 



certain obligations to Belgium and to both neu- 
tral and belligerent powers. With criminal ti- 
midity we have failed to fulfill these obligations. 
We have also failed to stand up for the rights 
of our own people in any efficient fashion, even 
when our men, women and children were mur- 
dered on the high seas. We have earned, and 
have richly deserved, the contemptuous dislike 
of all the nations of mankind by the course we 
have followed for a year as regards the great 
world war, and for five years as regards Mex- 
ico. Worst of all, we have utterly failed, even 
with the lesson of the last year writ in blood and 
fire before our eyes, to take steps to protect our- 
selves from such horrors. 

It is we ourselves, it is the American people, 
who are responsible for the public sentiment 
which permits unworthy action on the part of 
our governmental representatives. The peace 
propaganda of the past ten years in this country 
has steadily grown more noisy. It received an 
enormous impetus when five years ago, by the 
negotiation of peace-at-any-price or all-inclusive 
arbitration treaties, and in the last year by the 
ratification of the thirty odd peace-at-any-price 
arbitration-commission treaties, it was made 
part of our national governmental policy. It is 
the literal truth to say that this peace-at-any- 
price propaganda has probably, on the whole, 



worked more mischief to the United States than 
all the crookedness in business and politics com- 
bined during the same period. It has repre- 
sented more positive deterioration in the Ameri- 
can character. Millions of plain Americans, 
who do not have the opportunity to know the 
facts or to think them out for themselves, have 
been misled in this matter. They are not to 
blame; but the leaders and organizers of that 
movement, its upholders and apologists on the 
stump and in the pulpit and in the press, are very 
greatly to blame. Really good and highminded 
clergymen, capable of foresight and brave enough 
to risk being misrepresented, have stood stead- 
fastly against the odious creed which puts peace 
ahead of righteousness. But every cheap man 
in the pulpit, like every cheap demagogue on the 
stump, has joined in the "peace-at-any-price" cry. 
Some of the men and women who uphold the 
cause of the professional pacifists are actuated 
by good motives. The same statement can be 
made of some of the Tories in the Revolution- 
ary War, of some of the Copperheads in the Civil 
War. But the fact remains in this case, as in 
the case of the Copperheads and the Tories, that 
the sum of the activities of the men and women 
thus engaged was purely mischievous and rep- 
resented evil to America and evil to the cause of 
international justice and right. Wilkes Booth 



was an honest man; when he assassinated Lin- 
coln he was doubtless sincere in the belief that 
he was doing right; and great courage was 
needed to perform the evil feat. Yet surely 
Wilkes Booth did a worse deed than the most cor- 
rupt politician or businessman of his time. In 
exactly the same way the man who preaches 
peace at any price, non-resistance to all wrong, 
disarmament and the submission of everything 
to arbitration, no matter how sincere and honest 
he may be, is rendering a worse service to his 
fellow-countrymen than any exponent of crooked 
business or crooked politics. 

The deification of peace without regard to 
whether it is either wise or righteous does not 
represent virtue. It represents a peculiarly base 
and ignoble form of evil. For this reason it is 
a positive detriment to international morality for 
any man to take part in any of these universal 
peace-at-any-price or all-inclusive arbitration 
movements. Nor is this all. A movement right 
in itself may be all wrong if made at the wrong 
time. Even the proposal for a world peace of 
righteousness, based on force being put back of 
righteousness, is inopportune at this time. 

There are far more pressing and immediate 
duties. First and foremost, the United States 
must seriously prepare itself against war, and 
show itself able to maintain its rights and make 



its weight felt in the world. Next, it must aban- 
don both the policy of poltroonery the policy 
we have practised as regards the Lusitania and 
Mexico and the policy of recklessly making 
promises which neither can nor ought to be kept 
the policy we practiced in the proposed all- 
inclusive arbitration treaties five years ago, and, 
above all, in the unspeakably silly and wicked 
thirty all-inclusive arbitration-commission trea- 
ties actually negotiated under the present Ad- 
ministration. Our people should note well the 
fact that these treaties were in principle 
promptly repudiated by the very President who 
had negotiated them as soon as Mr. Bryan asked 
that the principle be concretely applied in the case 
of the Lusitanics. 

When we are prepared to make our words 
good and have shown that we make no promises 
which we are not both ready and willing to back 
up by our deeds, then, and not until then, we 
shall be able with dignity and effect to move 
for the establishment of a world agreement to 
secure the peace of justice. Such agreement 
must explicitly state that certain national rights 
are never to be arbitrated because the nations 
are to be protected in their exercise; that other 
matters shall be arbitrated; and that the power 
of all the nations shall be used to prevent wrong 
being done by one nation at the expense of an- 



other. To put peace above righteousness is 
wicked. To chatter about it, without making 
ready to put strength behind it, is silly. 

But all this is for the fu f ure, and it is beating 
the air to talk about it at present. "Ephraim 
feedeth on wind" and wind is not a substantial 
diet. A nation which is "too proud to fight" is a 
nation which is sure to be kicked; for every 
fighting man or nation knows that that particu- 
lar kind of "pride" is merely another name for 
abject cowardice. A nation helplessly unable to 
assert its own rights; a nation which for five 
years has refused to do its duty in Mexico and 
yet is unwilling to see other nations do their 
duty there ; a nation which without the utterance 
of one word of protest has seen The Hague Con- 
ventions which it signed torn to pieces and 
thrown to the winds ; a nation which has not ven- 
tured beyond empty words when its ships were 
sunk and its citizens, men, women and children, 
slain on the high seas, is in no position to help 
the cause of either peace or justice, and would 
excite merely derision if it proposed at this mo- 
ment the creation of a "World League for 

The six great powers of Europe have sent 
their best and their bravest by the million to die 
for the right as God gave them to see the right. 
All their finest young men are at the front. 



Some of them are fighting for good, some for 
evil; but all are fighting for what they think to 
be good, and all are showing splendid and heroic 
qualities. We excite only derision when under 
these circumstances we permit foolish people, 
men and women, in the name of America to prat- 
tle in meaningless words about the kind of peace 
that brave men and high-minded women will al- 
ways scorn. The all-insistent duty of the mo- 
ment for America is two- fold. First, we must 
prepare ourselves against disaster by facing the 
fact that we are nearly impotent in military mat- 
ters, and by remedying this impotence. Second, 
we must seriously and in good faith, and once for 
all, abandon the wicked and foolish habit of treat- 
ing words as all-sufficient by themselves, and as 
wholly irrelevant to deeds; and as an incident 
thereto we must from now on .refuse to make 
treaties which cannot be, and which will not be, 
lived up to in time of strain. 

As regards the last matter, promise and per- 
formance, we Americans must rid ourselves of 
the habit of salving our vanity, when down at 
bottom we know we are not behaving well, by 
using fine words to excuse ourselves from effort 
which ought to be made, and to justify ourselves 
in avoiding risk which ought to be accepted. 

There are persons who are against prepared- 
ness for war and who believe in the avoidance of 



national duty, who nevertheless are honest in 
their belief and who may not be cowardly or 
weak, but only foolish and misguided ; and there 
are hundreds of thousands of good and reason- 
ably brave men and women who simply have not 
thought of the matter at all and who are mis- 
guided by their leaders. But of most of these 
leaders it is not possible to take so charitable a 
view. The fundamental characteristic of the 
peace-at-any-price men is sheer, downright phys- 
ical or moral timidity. Very many of the leaders 
among the men who protest against preparedness 
and who are hostile to manly action on our part 
hostile to the insistence in good faith upon the ob- 
servance of The Hague Conventions and upon re- 
spect for the lives and property of our citizens in 
Mexico and on the high seas are easily cowed 
by any exhibition of ruthless and brutal force, 
and never venture to condemn wrongdoers who 
make themselves feared. This fact might just 
as well be faced. To it is due the further fact 
that the professional pacifist usually turns up as 
the ally of the most cynical type of international 

This has been made evident by the attitude of 
the great bulk of the men and women who have 
shrieked loudest for peace during the last eight- 
een months. It has been made evident by the men 
who have joined in the Peace Conferences, Peace 



Dinners and Peace Voyages during that time, 
and by the women of the same type who on this 
side of the water, or after traveling to the other 
side of the water, have advocated a peace with- 
out honor or justice. These men and women 
have demanded peace in terms that would not 
merely disregard righteousness, but that would 
crown unrighteousness with success. They have 
not ventured to make one protest against any 
concrete act of wrongdoing; they have not ven- 
tured to raise their voices in denunciation of the 
iniquity wrought by Germany against Belgium, 
the most wanton, the most hideous wrong, and 
the wrong on the largest scale, that had been per- 
petrated for over a century. Some of the women 
in question were abroad, actively engaged in ex- 
citing contempt and derision for themselves and 
their country by crying for peace without justice 
and without redress of wrongs, at the very time 
that the Lusitania was sunk. 

American women and children were at the time 
being slain on the high seas ; Belgian women and 
children, French women and children, in Belgium 
and Northern France, were at the same time suf- 
fering the last extremities of infamy and out- 
rage ; English women and children, in unfortified 
towns, were being killed by the bombs of German 
war vessels and aircraft ; and our own women in 
Mexico had been subjected to nameless infamies. 


But these amiable peace prattlers had not one 
word of effective sympathy for any of the wo- 
men and children who had suffered these dreadful 
fates. All they did was to utter silly platitudes, 
which were of comfort to the wrongdoers, and 
which, in so far as they had any effect, con- 
founded right and wrong and put a premium 
upon wrongdoing by making it evident that, if 
successful, it would escape condemnation; be- 
cause the condemnation was so uttered as, if any- 
thing, to bear more heavily on those who resisted 
wrong than upon those who inflicted wrong. 
There is no meaner moral attitude than that of 
a timid and selfish neutrality between right and 

Such action does not represent righteousness. 
At best it represents folly. Often it represents 
cowardice. Always it represents unrighteous- 
ness. Not the smallest particle of good has come 
from the peace propaganda of the last ten years 
as carried on in America. Literally, this agita- 
tion of the professional pacifists during these ten 
years has not represented the smallest advance 
toward securing the peace of righteousness. It 
has, on the other hand, represented a very con- 
siderable and real deterioration in the American 
character. I do not think it is a permanent' de- 
terioration. I think that we shall recover and 
become heartily ashamed of our lapse from vi- 



rile manliness. But there has been a distinct 
degeneracy in the moral fiber of our people owing 
to this peace propaganda, a distinct increase in 
moral flabbiness, a distinct increase in hysteria 
and sentimental untruth fulness. 

Not once in a thousand times is it possible to 
achieve anything worth achieving except by la- 
bor, by effort, by serious purpose and by the 
willingness to run risk. The persons who seek 
to persuade our people that by doing nothing, by 
passing resolutions that cost nothing, and by 
writing eloquent messages and articles that mean 
nothing, and by complacently applauding elocu- 
tion that means less than nothing, some service is 
thereby rendered to humanity, are not only ren- 
dering no such service, but are weakening the 
spring of national character. This applies to the 
publicists and politicians who write messages and 
articles and make speeches of this kind; it applies 
to the newspaper editors and magazine writers 
who applaud such utterances; and most of all it 
applies to those of our people who insist upon the 
passage of treaties that cannot and will not be en- 
forced, while they also inveigh against prepar- 
edness, and shudder at action on behalf of our 
own rights. 

Let no man propose a treaty unless he has re- 
duced it to concrete terms; has proposed it in 
these concrete terms to his fellows, and has de- 



termined whether, when thus made concrete, it 
ought to be and will be observed. Take a few il- 
lustrative cases. The ultra-pacifist movement, 
the peace-at-any-price movement, has seemingly 
been as strong on the Pacific slope as on the At- 
lantic seaboard and in the interior. Congress- 
men and editors have made speeches and written 
articles in which they have advocated disar- 
mament, and have demanded treaties by which 
the United States would agree to arbitrate every- 
thing. Worthy people, silly people, have en- 
couraged schoolboys solemnly to debate such 

Now let these congressmen and editors face 
facts and be frank and truthful. When they ap- 
plaud the passage of the thirty all-inclusive ar- 
bitration-commission treaties that the Adminis- 
tration has passed during the last year or so, 
do they mean that they wish, if the Japanese take 
Magdalena Bay or the Germans St. Thomas, to 
discuss the matter through a commission for a 
year without taking any action? Do they mean 
that when American women are raped in Mexico 
or American men murdered in our own territory 
by Mexicans firing across the line, or when the 
American flag is insulted and dishonored, we 
shall appoint a commission to discuss the matter 
for a year before taking action? Do they mean 
that if a French or English submarine sinks a 



ship crowded with non-combatants, as the Ger- 
mans sank the Lusitania, and if American 
women and children are again drowned whole- 
sale on the high seas, we shall appoint a com- 
mission to talk about it for a year and bind our- 
selves to take no action prior to that time? 

If they do mean these things, if our people 
mean these things, then let them honestly say so. 
FYom my standpoint such action would be incon- 
ceivably base and cowardly. Nevertheless, it is 
at least possible to accept the mental integrity 
of the man taking it, if he announces from the 
beginning that such is his intention. But it is 
absolutely and grossly improper to take it unless 
the concrete case to which the general principle 
is to apply is thus set nakedly forth at the outset 
and we agree to abide by action in such concrete 

Again, there are Pacific slope editors and pub- 
lic men who have excitedly applauded that phase 
of the peace-at-any-price propaganda in accord- 
ance with which it is proposed that we shall bind 
ourselves to arbitrate all questions, including 
those of national honor and vital national in- 
terest. The movement has been strong even in 
California. Now, do these public men and edi- 
tors who champion this form of peace movement 
in California, Oregon and Washington mean 
that we shall in good faith submit to outsiders 



for arbitration the question whether or not there 
shall be an unlimited immigration of Asiatics 
to our shores? Do they mean that a court con- 
taining judges from Japan, Siam, China, Vene- 
zuela, Colombia and Ecuador, as well as from 
the European powers, shall say whether or not 
we have a right to decide what immigrants shall 
come to our shores and here establish citizen- 
ship ? 

The Californian who does not believe in arbi- 
trating the question whether there shall be such 
unlimited immigration of Asiatics to California 
is guilty of the grossest bad faith when he cham- 
pions or fails to condemn such proposals, when 
he votes for or approves of the thirty-odd peace- 
commission treaties recently passed by the pres- 
ent Administration and the all-inclusive arbitra- 
tion treaties proposed by the preceding Adminis- 
tration. I hold that to arbitrate the question 
whether we should or should not allow the un- 
limited immigration of Asiatics to our shores 
would be a dreadful wrong. It is an almost 
equally serious wrong to conclude a treaty spe- 
cifically binding us to accept such arbitration, 
and then to repudiate the treaty. 

All this applies to the movement for inaugu- 
rating at this time a "World League for Peace," 
of which the decrees are to be backed by force. 
Before we make such a League for the future, 



let us in the present live up to our engagements 
under The Hague Conventions and without de- 
lay protest on behalf of Belgium. If we are not 
willing to undergo the modest risk implied in 
thus keeping the promise we have already made, 
then for heaven's sake let us avoid the hypocrisy 
of proposing a new world league, under which 
we would guarantee to send armies over to co- 
erce great military powers which decline to abide 
by the decisions of an arbitral court. Above all, 
let us avoid the infinite folly, the discreditable 
folly, of agitating for such an agreement until 
we have a naval and military force sufficient to 
entitle us to speak with the voice of authority 
when fronted with great military nations in in- 
ternational matters. Let us not live in a realm 
of childish make-believe. Let us not make new 
and large promises in a spirit of grandiloquent 
and elocutionary disregard of facts unless and 
until we are willing by deeds to make good the 
promises we have already made but have re- 
frained from executing; until we are willing to 
demand of our government that it live up to The 
Hague Conventions, and, above all, that it de- 
fend our own rights. 

Now, the fact that these male and female pro- 
fessional peace enthusiasts who have screamed 
so busily for peace during the past year have been 
afraid to make any concrete protest against 

1 80 


wrong is doubtless due primarily to sheer fear 
on their part. They were afraid of the trouble 
and effort implied in acting about Mexico. 
Above all, they are afraid of Germany. Those 
of them who are politicians are afraid of the 
German- American vote; for these professional 
pacifists have no sense of national honor and 
are great encouragers of hyphenated American- 
ism. But in addition they are terrorized, they 
are cowed, by the ruthless spirit of German mili- 
tarism. The Berlin Lokal Anzeiger spoke as 
follows after the sinking of the Lusitania: 

We do not wish to gain the love of the 
Americans, but we desire to be respected 
by them. The loss of the Lusitania will 
earn that respect for us more than a hun- 
dred battles won on land. 

Of course, when the Lokal Anzeiger spoke of 
inspiring "respect" in America, what it really 
meant was that it would inspire fear. The mur- 
der of women and children does not inspire re- 
spect; but, unfortunately, it may inspire fear. 
As a matter of fact, I think it did inspire fear 
among our pacifists. There are plenty of Amer- 
icans like myself who immensely admire the ef- 
ficiency of the Germans in industry and in war, 
the efficiency with which in this war they have 
subordinated the whole social and industrial ac- 



tivity of the state to the successful prosecution 
of the war, and who greatly admire the German 
people, and regard the German strain as one of 
the best and strongest strains in our composite 
American blood; but who feel that the German 
Government, the German governing class has in 
this war shown such ruthless and domineering 
disregard for the rights of others as to demand 
emphatic and resolute action (not merely words 
unbacked by action) on our part. Unfortu- 
nately, this ruthless and brutal efficiency has, as 
regards many men of the pacifist type, achieved 
precisely the purpose it was intended to achieve. 
As part of her program, Germany has counted 
on the effect of terrorism upon all men of soft 
nature. The sinking of the Lusitania was in- 
tended primarily as terrorism; just as the use 
of poison gas in the trenches (a use defensible 
only if one also defends the poisoning of wells 
and the torture of prisoners) was intended as 
terrorism. The object terrorization has not 
been achieved as regards the fighting men of 
England, France, Belgium, Russia, Italy and 
Servia. But it has had a distinct effect in 
cowing timid persons everywhere. I do not be- 
lieve it would have any effect in cowing the bulk 
of our people if our people could be waked up 
to what has happened; but I have no question 
that it has had a very great effect in cowing that 



noisy section of our people which has talked loud- 
est about peace at any price. The people who 
say of the present Administration that "at any 
rate, it has kept us out of war with Mexico 
or Germany ;" the people who say that we ought 
not to act about the Lusitania; the people who 
say we ought not to have acted on behalf of Bel- 
gium, include in their ranks all of the per- 
sons who are cowed by Germany, who are 
afraid of what Germany would do if we stood up 
for our own rights or for the rights of other and 
weaker peoples. Recently, in certain circles, 
some popularity has been achieved by a song en- 
titled "I Didn't Raise My Boy To Be a Soldier" 
a song which ought always to be sung with a 
companion piece entitled "I Didn't Raise My Girl 
To Be a Mother." The two would stand on pre- 
cisely the same moral level. This hymn, in con- 
demnation of courage, has been sung in music 
halls, and even in schools, with applause. Think 
of such a song being sung by or of the mothers, 
sisters and wives of the men who fought under 
Washington in the Revolution, or of the men 
who fought under Grant and Lee in the Civil 
War! Those who applaud such a song are 
wholly out of place at any patriotic celebration 
on Decoration Day or the Fourth of July; and 
most assuredly men of this abject type will be 
easily affected by terrorism. 



The sinking of the Lusitania, the destruction 
of Louvain, the shooting of the Belgians who 
rallied to the defence of their flag precisely as 
the men of Lexington and Bunker Hill once ral- 
lied to the defence of theirs, the merciless thor- 
oughness of the exploitation of the civilian popu- 
lation of Northern France and Belgium, the ut- 
ter ruthlessness shown in dealing not only with 
men but with women and children all this has 
undoubtedly cowed and terrorized the average 
American pacifist, the average peace-at-any- 
price man in the United States. It has cowed 
the type of man who cheers such a song as "I 
Didn't Raise My Boy To Be a Soldier." It has 
terrorized the type of man who makes speeches 
and writes editorials or newspaper or magazine 
articles on behalf of disarmament, on behalf of 
universal arbitration, and against the Monroe 
Doctrine. There is a Dr. Jeykll and Mr. Hyde 
in nations as in individuals ; and sheer terrorism 
is often found working hand-in-hand with flabby 
and timid international pacifism for the undo- 
ing of righteousness and for the deification of 
the most brutal form of successful militarism. 

Mrs. Wharton has sent me the following Ger- 
man poem on the sinking of the Lusitania, with 
her translation: 




(Translated from the German.)* 

The swift sea sucks her death-shriek under 
As the great ship reels and leaps asunder. 
Crammed taffrail-high with her murderous 

Like a straw on the tide she whirls to her 


A warship she, though she lacked its coat, 

And lustful for lives as none afloat, 

A warship, and one of the foe's best 

Not penned with her rusting harbor-shirk- 


Now the Flanders guns lack their daily 


And shipper and buyer are sick with dread, 
For neutral as Uncle Sam may be 
Your surest neutral's the deep green sea. 

Just one ship sunk, with lives and shell, 
And thousands of German gray-coats well ! 
And for each of her gray-coats, German 

Would have sunk ten ships with all their 


* Poem reprinted by courtesy of N. Y. Herald. 



Yea, ten such ships are a paltry fine 
For one good life in our fighting line. 
Let England ponder the crimson text: 


This is not a pleasant poem. I do not envy 
the person who could write with this exultation 
of the death of women and children. It is a 
manifestation of the policy of blood and iron 
which should be pondered carefully by those 
who, with voices of quivering timidity, are ad- 
vocating our submission to such policies. Be it 
remembered, moreover, that bad though it is to 
do such a deed, it is even more contemptible to 
submit to it. The policy of milk and water is 
an even worse policy than the policy of blood 
and iron. To sink a hundred American men, 
women and children on the Lusitc&nia, in other 
words, to murder them, was an evil thing; but 
it was not quite as evil and it was nothing like as 
contemptible as it was for this nation to rest sat- 
isfied with governmental notes of protest couched 
in elegant English, and with vaguely implied 
threats which were not carried out. When a 
man has warned another man not to slap his 
wife's face, and the other man does it, the gentle- 
man who has given the warning does not meet 



the situation by treating elocution as a substitute 
for action. 

Mr. Bryan resigns the foremost position in the 
American Cabinet and immediately addresses a 
large meeting of Germans, where he was very 
properly received with uproarious applause as 
a faithful servant of the present German govern- 
ment, as a man who, however amiable his inten- 
tions, had in actual fact stood against the honor 
and interest of America. Now, if Mr. Bryan 
were a German, the German government would 
not for one moment permit him to make the kind 
of address against Germany that the Germans 
applauded him for making against his own coun- 
try and ours. The success of the German policy 
of blood-and-iron largely depends upon their pos- 
sible rivals and opponents adopting a policy of 
milk-and-water. The blood-and-iron statesman 
of one nation finds in the milk-and-water states- 
man of another nation the man predestined 
through the ages to be his ally and his tool. 

A number of persons, including especially the 
ultra-pacifists, have strongly objected to the 
statement that this country should have acted on 
behalf of Belgium, and have done this on the 
ground that we have declared as a nation that we 
did not intend to be drawn into "entangling alli- 
ances" in Europe. Yet the same persons now 
advocate our going into a league to enforce the 



results of universal arbitration, which, of course, 
represents the "entangling" of ourselves in a for- 
eign alliance on the largest possible scale. It also 
represents an agreement on our part to wage of- 
fensive war on behalf of others, although many 
of the persons favoring such an agreement are 
opposed to the very moderate policy of making us 
fit to protect our own rights in defensive war. It 
is idle to make promises on behalf of a movement 
for world peace unless we intend to live up to 
them. If so, the first step is to live up to the 
promises we have already made, and not to try 
to sneak out of them on the ground that to ful- 
fill them means to abandon our "policy of re- 
fusal to be entangled in foreign alliances." 

This attitude of the ultra-pacifists is merely 
another illustration of the necessity of subordi- 
nating elocution in advocacy of universal world 
peace to action (not merely elocution) to meet 
more immediate and vital needs. It is utterly 
useless to advocate our entering into such a pro- 
posed league until we have prepared in military 
fashion to make our action effective and until 
we have seriously resolved to live up to our 
promises and, as a consequence, to make but 
few promises. Therefore, at this moment all 
agitation for such a league merely offers an op- 
portunity for the people who want to talk and 
to do nothing else. It gives them the chance to 

1 88 


avoid the performance of immediate duty by 
empty elocution for something which is in the 
remote future and which cannot possibly be 
achieved until the immediate duty has been effec- 
tively performed. In my book, "America and 
the World War," I have outlined the only pos- 
sibly feasible plan for securing world peace that 
has yet been propounded. But it is waste of time 
to advocate such a plan until we have adopted 
and put into effect a policy of national military 
preparedness, and until we take the trouble to 
find out what treaties promises mean, and to 
refuse to make them unless they are to be kept. 
To enter into the proposed "League of Peace" 
would mean that we promised, under certain con- 
ditions, to undertake offensive war on behalf of 
others. It would be ludicrous to make such a 
promise until we have shown that we are willing 
to undertake defensive war on behalf of our- 

In 1814, a little over a century ago, in the 
course of the War of 1812, a small British army 
landed in Chesapeake Bay. It defeated twice its 
number of "free-born American citizens," with- 
out training and discipline, who "had leaped to 
arms," as Mr. Bryan says, or become "an armed 
citizenry," as Mr. Wilson puts it. It then burned 
the public buildings at Washington. The "armed 
citizenry" upon whose potentiality President 



Wilson relied as an excuse for signal failure to 
make any preparation to do our duty by adequate 
preparation in view of the terrible world war 
now going on and of the situation in Mexico 
fled with such unanimity and rapidity that only 
a score or so lost their lives. Thereupon the re- 
mainder, together with all the American editors 
and public men who for years had been scream- 
ing for peace and announcing that there was no 
need of preparing against war, instead of ex- 
pressing their hearty shame and repentance for 
the national failure to prepare, became hyster- 
ical in attacking with words only the hostile 
army for having burned Washington. The 
British army a century ago was as profoundly 
indifferent to this attack as the war lords of Ger- 
many to-day are to our prattle about the Lusi- 
tania or the resolutions of our peace societies, 
and the boasts of our political orators on the 
Fourth of July. Such indifference was, and is, 
entirely justifiable. It was not a nice thing to 
burn the public buildings of Washington; but it 
was an infinitely worse thing for this country, 
after two years of war, to be utterly unable to 
protect its capital. It was not a nice thing to 
kill our women and children on the Lusitania; 
but it was an even meaner and more contemptible 
thing for us to fail to act with instant decision 
thereon and had we so acted in the case of the 



Gul flight, a few days previously, the Lusitania 
would never have been sunk. 

Every right-minded man utterly despises a 
coward in private life. Cowardice is the un- 
pardonable sin in a man. A corrupt man can 
be reformed. Many a corrupt man, both in poli- 
tics and business, has been reformed within the 
past score of years, has realized the evils of cor- 
ruption and is now a first-class citizen. In the 
same way a coward who appreciates that coward- 
ice is a sin, an unpardonable sin if persevered in, 
may train himself so as, first to act like a brave 
man, and then finally to feel like and therefore to 
be a brave man. But the coward who excuses his 
cowardice, who tries to cloak it behind lofty 
words, who perseveres in it, and does not appre- 
ciate his own infamy, is beyond all hope. The 
peace-at-any-price people, the universal and all- 
inclusive arbitration people, and most of the men 
and women who have taken the lead in the paci- 
fist movement in this country during the last five 
or ten years, are preaching international cow- 

Sometimes these professional pacifists preach 
such cowardice openly. At other times they 
preach the utter flabbiness and feebleness, moral 
and physical, which inevitably breeds cowardice. 
It is a dreadful thing to think that in the event 
of war brave men would have to shed their 



blood ; it is a worse thing to think that these fee- 
ble folk would purchase their own ignoble safety 
by the blood of others. The men and women 
guilty of such preaching and such practice are 
thoroughly bad citizens. The worst of them, of 
course, are those in the colleges, and those who 
profess to speak for the colleges; for to them 
much has been given and from them much should 
be expected. The college boys who adopt the 
professional pacifist views, who make peace 
leagues and preach the doctrines of international 
cowardice, are unfitting themselves for any ca- 
reer more manly than that of a nursemaid. A 
grown-up of the professional pacifist type is not 
an impressive figure ; but the college boy who de- 
liberately elects to be a "sissy" should be replaced 
in the nursery and spanked. 

It is to be regretted that we do not learn his- 
tory aright. Allusion has been made above to 
the War of 1812. Had Washington or men who 
carried out Washington's policy been in charge 
of our government during the first fifteen years 
of the nineteenth century, there would probably 
have been no war with Great Britain in 1812, 
or if there had been we would have been com- 
pletely and overwhelmingly successful. But the 
great opponent of Washington's ideals, Thomas 
Jefferson, gave the tone to our governmental pol- 
icies during that time. He announced that his 



"passion was peace" not as strong an expres- 
sion as "being too proud to fight," but sufficiently 
noxious. He and his followers declined to pre- 
pare a regular army and refused to upbuild the 
Navy. The very Congress that declared war on 
Great Britain declined to increase our Navy. Yet 
if at that time we had had an efficient navy of 
twenty battleships or an efficient mobile regular 
army of twenty thousand men, the war would 
not have taken place at all or else it would have 
ended in complete and sweeping victory the sum- 
mer it was declared. 

We trusted, however, to the "armed citizenry" 
of whom Mr. Wilson speaks and to the voluntary 
efforts of "the million men who spring to arms 
between dawn and sunset," described in Mr. 
Bryan's oratory. We trusted to the few frigates 
prepared by the men of Washington's school be- 
fore the Jeffersonians came to power. These 
frigates did their duty well and but for them it 
is possible that our country would have broken 
in pieces under the intolerable shame of our fail- 
ure on land. Nevertheless, our small cruisers 
could produce only a moral and not a material 
effect upon the war. On land for two years we 
were unable to do anything effective at all. 
When the war had begun, it was too late to make 
efficient preparations; and in any event we did 
not try. We raised a body of over a hundred 



thousand militiamen under the volunteer system. 
These militiamen were gathered in camps where 
they sickened of various diseases; but we were 
never able to get them against the foe in any 
numbers, except on one or two occasions, such as 
at Bladensburg. Mind you, they were naturally 
good enough men. The individuals who ran at 
Bladensburg were the sons of the men of York- 
town, the fathers of the men of Gettysburg. 
What they needed was preparation by long train- 
ing in advance; training in the field, not merely 
in an armory or on a drill ground. 

The same thing was true of our Civil War. 
In 1 86 1 both of the contending armies at Bull 
Run could have been beaten with ease by a Euro- 
pean army of regulars half the size of either. 
In 1863 there was not an army in Europe which 
could have contended on equal terms with either 
of the armies that fought at Gettysburg. In 
1814, after two years of exertion, Brown, Scott, 
and a few other officers like them on the northern 
frontier, developed a tiny army as good as could 
be found anywhere, and Andrew Jackson, a real 
military genius, performed the same feat for the 
few thousand Tennesseeans and Louisianians 
whom he commanded at New Orleans. 

But the War of 1812 was not a victorious war 
for us. At best it is possible to call it a draw. 
It was a thoroughly discreditable war from the 



standpoint of our people as a whole. The land 
officers I have named above, and a few thousand 
troops, not more than ten thousand all told, who 
served under them, did well. So did the officers 
and crews of our tiny navy and the shipwrights 
who built the ships. These men, and a very few 
others, deserved the highest credit. We of to- 
day owe them much. It is only because of their 
existence that Americans can think of the War 
of 1812 without unmixed shame. But the bulk 
of our people, and the politicians, from the 
President down, who represented our people, 
made a wretched showing in that war; and be- 
cause of this showing the Union came very near 
splitting up. If history were rightly taught, this 
fact would be brought out clearly in our schools ; 
and the pacifists, the peace-at-any-price men, the 
men who shirk preparedness and who chatter 
about the efficacy of salvation to be secured by 
diluted moral mush, would not have the clear 
field they now have. 

Men cannot and will not fight well unless they 
are physically prepared ; and they cannot and will 
not fight if, through the generations, they elabo- 
rately unfit themselves by weakening their own 
moral fiber. China furnishes the greatest exam- 
ple, and a living and contemporary example. Mr. 
Bryan recently announced that instead of war, 
which he regarded as outworn, he wished to try 



"persuasion." Evidently he was under the im- 
pression that persuasion was something new in 
the annals of history. Let Mr. Bryan and his 
fellow pacifists read history; and, if they won't 
read history, let them at least look at affairs that 
are contemporary. A sillier falsehood has never 
been uttered than the falsehood that "war settles 
nothing." War settled the independence of this 
country; war settled the question of union, and 
war settled the question of slavery. Pacifists 
pretend to speak in the interests of morality. It 
is a poor thing for professed moralists to rest 
their case on a falsehood, which they must know 
to be a falsehood. Many of the greatest events 
of history have been settled by war. Many of 
the greatest advances in humanity have been due 
to successful wars for righteousness. 

Christianity is not the creed of Asia and Af- 
rica at this moment solely because the seventh 
century Christians of Asia and Africa, in addi- 
tion to being rent asunder among themselves by 
bitter sectarian animosities and sectarian in- 
tolerance and animosity stand for most that is 
evil in Christianity had trained themselves not 
to fight, whereas the Moslems were trained to 
fight. Christianity was saved in Europe solely 
because the peoples of Europe fought. If the 
peoples of Europe in the seventh and eighth cen- 
turies, and on up to and including the seven- 



teenth century, had not possessed a military 
equality with, and gradually a growing superior- 
ity over, the Mohammedans who invaded Europe, 
Europe would at this moment be Mohammedan, 
and the Christian religion would be extermi- 
nated. Wherever the Mohammedans have had 
complete sway, wherever the Christians have 
been unable to resist them by the sword, Christi- 
anity has ultimately disappeared. From the ham- 
mer of Charles Martel to the sword of Sobieski, 
Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the 
fact that it was able to show that it could and 
would fight as well as the Mohammedan ag- 

China is the great living example of unpre- 
paredness, of pacifism, of the peace-at-any- 
price spirit, of the effort to preserve territory 
and national self-respect by "persuasion" and 
not by the sword. In consequence the English, 
the French, the Russians, the Japanese, control 
one-half of the territory of China, and the re- 
maining territory, under the pressure of Japan, 
is at this moment losing all right to be considered 
an independent and self-respecting people. Well- 
meaning persons who treat peace pageants, peace 
parades, peace conferences and minor movements 
of similar nature as of consequence, are guilty 
of an error which makes their conduct foolish. 
Those of them who champion the exaltation of 



peace above righteousness and the abandonment 
of national power of self-defence without 
which there never has been and never will be 
either national heroism or national manliness 
will do well to study China. 

It is mere gong-beating, it is the mere sound- 
ing of tom-toms and rattles, for our people to 
get together in conference at the present time 
and declare for universal peace and announce 
that they wish a world league by which they will 
agree to arbitrate everything and enforce the re- 
sult by arms. Of course in no event should we 
agree to arbitrate everything. But the prime 
point to be considered at the moment is that un- 
til we show that we possess force, that we are 
willing to use it when necessary, and that we 
make no promises save those that ought to be and 
will be carried out, we shall be utterly useless to 
do anything for righteousness, whether through 
these leagues or in any other fashion. 

Every peace body, whether religious or hu- 
manitarian, philosophic or political, and all ad- 
vocates of peace, whether in public or private 
life, work nothing but mischief, and, save in so 
far as mere silliness prevents it, very serious mis- 
chief, unless they put righteousness first and 
peace next. Every league that calls itself a 
Peace League is championing immorality unless 
it clearly and explicitly recognizes the duty of 



putting righteousness before peace and of being 
prepared and ready to enforce righteousness by 
war if necessary; and it is idle to promise to 
wage offensive war on behalf of others until we 
have shown that we are able and willing to wage 
defensive war on behalf of ourselves. The man 
who fears death more than dishonor, more than 
failure to perform duty, is a poor citizen; and 
the nation that regards war as the worst of all 
evils and the avoidance of war as the highest 
good is a wretched and contemptible nation, and 
it is well that it should vanish from the face of 
the earth. 

If our people really believed what the pacifists 
and the German- fearing politicians advocate, if 
they really feared war above anything else and 
really had sunk to the Chinese level from which 
the best and bravest and most honorable China- 
men are now striving to lift their people then 
it would be utterly hopeless to help the United 
States. In such case, the best thing that could 
befall it would be to have the Germans, or the 
Japanese, or some other people that still retains 
virility, come over here to rule and oppress a na- 
tion of feeble pacifists, unfit to be anything but 
hewers of wood and drawers of water for their 

But I do not for one moment admit that the 
American people has sunk or will sink to such a 



level. We are foolish and shortsighted and we 
permit the prattlers to misrepresent us. But at 
bottom the heart of this people is sound. We 
celebrate Decoration Day and Independence Day 
on the 3Oth of May and the 4th of July. We be- 
lieve in the men of the Revolution, in the men 
of the Civil War and in the women who did 
"raise their sons to be soldiers" for the right. 
We know that in itself war is neither moral nor 
immoral, that the test of the righteousness of 
war is the object and purpose for which it is 
waged. Therefore, it is worth while for our 
people seriously to consider the problems ahead 
of them; and the first problem is the problem of 

The prime and all-important lesson to learn 
is that while preparedness will not guarantee a 
nation against war, unpreparedness eventually 
insures not merely war, but utter disaster. Take 
what has happened in the last twelve months at 
home and abroad. Preparedness has saved 
France from the unspeakable shame that befell 
it in 1870. Every Frenchman holds his head 
higher now than any Frenchman has held it in 
forty-five years. England suffers because she 
has not prepared. If her army had been pre- 
pared as Lord Roberts wished it to be prepared, 
if she had had universal military service on the 
German model, if she had copied the admirable 



German efficiency, military, industrial and so- 
cial (and had then, unlike Germany, applied it 
with regard for, instead of with disregard for, 
the rights of others), she would have been able 
to rescue Belgium and France from invasion and 
her own position would now be absolutely as- 
sured. She was well prepared from a naval point 
of view and so was able to protect herself on the 
ocean. But, when she guaranteed Belgium's 
neutrality, she abandoned her sea frontier and 
pushed her land frontier forward to the German 
border beyond Liege. She failed to realize this 
fact just as we have failed to realize that our 
own moral frontier is not our own seaboard, but 
is overseas, in Alaska and Hawaii and the Pan- 
ama Canal Zone. 

But Belgium, when compared with Switzer- 
land, offers the most complete example. In 
many respects Belgium a year ago stood strik- 
ingly near to where the United States stands to- 
day. She had not been quite as shortsighted as 
we have shown and are now showing ourselves 
to be; but she had been very shortsighted. She 
was an absolutely peaceful and exceedingly pros- 
perous country. She had a great industrial pop- 
ulation. For many years the wiser among her 
people, including especially, by the way, the wis- 
est representatives of the labor element, the So- 
cialists and others, had preached preparedness, 



so that the country might be saved from invasion 
by its great military neighbors. But her inter- 
national policy was determined by the pacifists 
and peace-at-any-price men, the men and women 
who said that it was "immoral to fight" and that 
"war settled nothing," and the other men and 
women who said that nobody would ever attack 
Belgium because she was peaceful, and never 
committed aggression, and that all that was nec- 
essary to national well-being was business pros- 
perity, and attention to measures of internal re- 
form. These persons were successful in pre- 
venting any adequate preparation. Only a very 
inadequate one had been attempted and that only 
during the last year or two. This inadequate 
preparation was directly responsible for disaster 
so overwhelming as to wipe out what had been 
built up by generations of patient industry. 

Switzerland meanwhile, the most peaceful 
country in Europe, had energetically taken full 
measures for her self-defence. Switzerland had 
an army of 400,000 men, highly efficient. Bel- 
gium, according to her population, on the same 
basis would have had an army of 700,000 men. 
If she had had such an army and had acted pre- 
cisely as Switzerland acted, Belgian territory 
would now be in Belgian hands and the line 
of western war in Europe, representing what 
has been for fourteen months a stalemate, would 



have left Belgium on the right instead of 
on the wrong side ; and she would have been free 
instead of trodden down and wasted under an 
appalling tyranny. No one acquainted with re- 
cent German military history, and with German 
military plans for the past twenty years, doubts 
for a moment that the German invasion would 
have taken place as quickly through Switzerland 
as through Belgium if it had been safe. But 
Belgium's army was only about one-sixth the 
size of the Swiss army. The small Belgian army 
fought valiantly; the conduct of the Belgian peo- 
ple during the last eleven months has been above 
all praise ; and they have rendered mankind their 
debtor by their heroism. But the heroism came 
too late to be of avail. It was too late to prepare, 
or to make good the lack of preparedness, when 
once the Germans crossed the border. Switzer- 
land had prepared in advance and Switzerland 
is at peace now, while the soil of Belgium has 
been trodden into bloody mire. The physical na- 
ture of the two countries has nothing to do with 
the difference. A century ago, Napoleon's arm- 
ies treated Switzerland as cavalierly as Germany 
to-day treats Belgium ; and for the same reason ; 
because Switzerland was then utterly unpre- 

Let our people take warning. Look at what 
has happened in Asia at the same time. Japan 



was prepared; Japan was ready to fight. With 
trivial loss she has made enormous gains and 
now dominates China. China was not ready to 
fight; she had not prepared. In natural re- 
sources, in territory, in population, she many 
times over surpassed Japan; but she had com- 
mitted the cardinal sin of neglecting to prepare; 
and she now is at Japan's mercy and her very 
existence is a matter of doubt. 

The most certain way for a nation to invite 
disaster is to be opulent, self-assertive and un- 
armed. A nation can no more prepare for self- 
defence when war actually threatens than a 
spoiled college "sissy" of the pacifist type can 
defend himself if a young tough chooses to in- 
sult him; and unlike the sissy, the nation cannot 
under such conditions appeal to the police. Now 
and then to insure a house means that some 
scoundrel burns the house down in order to get 
the insurance. But we do not in consequence 
abandon insurance against fire. Now and then 
a nation prepares itself for a war of aggression. 
But this is no argument against preparedness in 
order to repel aggression. Preparedness against 
war is the only efficient form of national peace 



OVER forty years ago Charles Dickens 
wrote as follows of the United States: 
"In these times in which I write it is honorably 
remarkable for protecting its subjects wherever 
they may travel with a dignity and a determina- 
tion which is a model for England." Ulysses 
Grant was then President of the United States. 
Like Washington and Lincoln and Andrew 
Jackson, he was an American who was not 
too proud to fight. Those of my countrymen 
who are still faithful to the old American tra- 
dition cannot but feel with bitter shame the con- 
trast between the conditions Charles Dickens 
thus described and the conditions at the present 

The policy of watchful waiting, a policy popu- 
lar among governmental chiefs of a certain type 
ever since the days of Ethelred the Unready and 
for thousands of years anterior to that not 
wholly fortunate ruler, has failed, as of course 
it always does fail in the presence of serious dif- 
ficulty and of a resolute and ruthless foe. We 



have tried every possible expedient save only the 
application of wisdom and resolution. It has 
been said that we have not tried war; but this 
statement can be made only by those who are 
inexact in their terminology. Of course, if any 
one's feelings are soothed by saying that when 
we took Vera Cruz, suffered a loss of a hundred 
and twenty men killed and wounded and in re- 
turn killed and wounded several hundred Mexi- 
cans, we were waging peace and not waging 
war, why there is no particular objection to this 
individual gaining whatever comfort is afforded 
by using words which misdescribe facts. But 
this is all the comfort he can gain. As a natural 
result of the impression created on foreigners by 
our conduct in Mexico, we were forced to hostile 
action in Haiti and a number of our men and our 
opponents were killed and wounded. Appar- 
ently we "waged peace" in Haiti, much as we 
"waged peace" in Mexico and in Mexico the 
end of the war or peace or whatever it was 
that we waged was that we withdrew without get- 
ting the result which our Government had an- 
nounced that it would get when it took Vera 

We of the United States have had a twofold 
duty imposed on us during the last year. We 
have owed a duty to ourselves. We have owed 
a duty to others. We have failed in both. 



Primarily both failures are due to the mis- 
chievous effects of the professional pacifist 
agitation which became governmental nearly five 
years ago when the then Administration at 
Washington sought to negotiate various all-in- 
clusive arbitration treaties under which we aban- 
doned the right to stand up for our own vital 
interest and national honor. Very reluctantly 
we who believe in peace, but in the peace of 
righteousness, have been forced to the conclusion 
that the most prominent leaders of the peace agi- 
tation of the past ten years in this country, so 
far as they have accomplished anything that was 
not purely fatuous, have accomplished nothing 
but mischief. This result of the activities of 
these professional pacifist agitators has been due 
mainly to the fact that they have consistently 
placed peace ahead of righteousness, and have 
resolutely refused to look facts in the face if they 
thought the facts were unpleasant. 

It is as foolish to ignore common sense in this 
matter as in any other matter. It is as wicked 
to exalt peace at the expense of morality as it 
is to exalt war at the expense of morality. The 
greatest service that Lincoln rendered to the 
cause of permanent peace and to the greater 
cause of justice and of righteousness was ren- 
dered by him when, with unshaken firmness, he 
accepted four years of grinding warfare rather 



than yield to the professional pacifists of his day 
the Copperheads. Washington's greatest serv- 
ice to peace was rendered by similar action on 
his part. And be it remembered that never in 
history have two men rendered greater service to 
the only kind of peace worth having for honor- 
able men and women than was rendered by these 
two heroes who did not shrink from righteous 

Failure to perform duty to others is merely 
aggravated by failure to perform duty to our- 
selves. To pay twenty-five million dollars 
blackmail to Colombia does not atone for our 
timid refusal to do our duty by Belgium. It 
merely aggravates it. Moreover, it should al- 
ways be remembered that in these matters the 
weak cannot be helped by the weak ; that the bru- 
tal wrongdoer cannot be checked by the coward 
or by the fat, boastful, soft creature who does 
not take the trouble to make himself fit to en- 
force his words by his deeds. Preparedness 
means forethought, effort, trouble, labor. 
Therefore soft men, selfish, indolent men, men 
absorbed in money-getting, and the great mass 
of well-meaning men who shrink from perform- 
ing the new duties created by new needs, eagerly 
welcome a political leader who will comfort them, 
and relieve their secret sense of shame, by using 



high-sounding names to describe their shortcom- 

An adroit politician can unquestionably gain 
many votes in such fashion, if he exalts unpre- 
paredness as a duty, if he praises peace and ad- 
vocates neutrality, as both in themselves moral 
even although the "peace" and "neutrality" 
may be conditioned on the failure to do our duty 
either to others or to ourselves. Such a politi- 
cian, if he excels in the use of high-sounding 
words, may win votes and gain office by thus 
pandering to men who wish to hear their selfish- 
ness, their short-sightedness or their timidity ex- 
alted into virtues. But he is sapping the moral 
vitality of the people whom he misleads. 

It has been an evil thing that this nation, 
which for five years has been strutting as the 
champion of peace and holding conferences to 
denounce war and praising its wealthy citizens 
for founding peace leagues, has contented itself 
with these futile activities and has not dared to 
strike a blow, has not dared even to say a word 
for righteousness in the concrete, while wrong 
has been at least temporarily triumphant during 
the past eighteen months. It is an even worse 
thing that during this last eighteen months we 
have wholly failed to prepare to defend our own 
homes from disaster. 

Nor can we, the people of the United States, 

escape blame for ourselves by putting it upon 
our public servants. Unquestionably the Admin- 
istration has been guilty of culpable indifference 
to the honor and the interest of the nation dur- 
ing the last year and a half; but it has been guilty 
in this fashion precisely because it could count 
upon popular support ; and therefore the ultimate 
blame rests on the people, that is, on us. It may 
well be that political gain will come to the politi- 
cians who appeal to what is selfish and timid 
in the hearts of our people, and who comfort 
soft self-indulgence by praising it as virtuous. 
A correspondent from Virginia, who has always 
been opposed to me politically, writes: "The 
most depressing feature of the present situation 
is that the great majority of the American people 
strongly approve of the stand of President Wil- 
son and the other apostles of Buchananism. 
Every one is so satisfied with his money-mak- 
ing and comforts, the moving-picture shows, 
and his automobile that there is horror at 
the thought of death and of need and hunger and 
fatigue. There is a self-righteous disposition to 
regard heroism as wickedness, and to consider all 
soldiers as wicked and immoral. Teace with 
honor' is on the lips of many when the brutal 
alternatives are war with honor or peace with 
everlasting shame and dishonor. The Admin- 
istration is thoroughly terrorized by the Ger- 



mans. The people of this section are for peace 
at any price." This may be the general senti- 
ment of the American people, and if so, then 
those who pander to it will profit politically. But 
they will win profit for themselves by helping 
to debase their fellow-countrymen. 

When the world war broke out over a year 
ago, it was simply inexcusable for this people not 
at once to begin the work of preparation. If we 
had done so, we would now have been able to 
make our national voice felt effectively in help- 
ing to bring about peace with justice and no 
other peace ought to be allowed. But not one 
thing has been done by those in power to make 
us ready. On the contrary, in his message to 
Congress of December, 1914, the President elab- 
orately argued in favor of keeping ourselves 
unprepared, expressing the hope that, if we thus 
preserved immunity from hatred by keeping our- 
selves beneath contempt, we might create a situ- 
ation where he would be employed as a go-be- 
tween, as the man to fetch and carry among the 
warring powers when the time for peace nego- 
tiations arrived. 

The attitude of the German- American press in 
this country toward the subsequent notes of the 
President to Germany throws the true light on 
this fond anticipation. These hyphenated Amer- 
ican newspapers have shown that their entire 



loyalty is to that portion of the compound term 
which precedes the hyphen, and that they trans- 
late the term German- American as meaning that 
they are Germans who use their position in 
America as a means for endeavoring to force 
America to sacrifice its own honor and the in- 
terests of mankind in order to serve the Ger- 
man Government. The professional German- 
Americans here, acting, as has been shown by 
President Wilson's ardent supporters in New 
York, with the connivance of the Administra- 
tion, and by the direct instigation of the Ger- 
man Government, have deliberately campaigned 
against the United States, have exulted in the 
German atrocities, and have openly stated that 
the support of the German- American vote was 
conditioned upon the Administration's attitude 
toward Germany, and that Germany would let 
President Wilson play a part in the peace ne- 
gotiations only if he actively or passively helped 
Germany in the war. He has found them hard 
taskmasters ; and they have so angered his other 
masters, the American people, that the latter 
have forced him to belated and half-hearted ac- 
tion. After eighteen months he has begun feebly 
to advocate an imperfect preparedness. After 
mere conversation for seven months over the 
Lusitania with Germany he finally becomes an- 
gry with Austria over the Ancona for Austria 



is weaker than Germany and it is safer to be 
angry with her. But he takes no action about the 
various other ships which were sunk there was 
little popular excitement about these ships. 

Men are not to be seriously blamed for failure 
to see or foresee what is hidden from all but 
eyes that are almost prophetic. The most far- 
seeing Americans, since the days of Washington, 
have always stood in advance of popular feeling 
in the United States so far as national prepar- 
edness against war is concerned. But on the 
other hand not a few of the leaders have been 
much less advanced than the people they led. 
And under right leadership the people have al- 
ways been willing to grapple with facts that were 
fairly obvious. They have refused to do this 
when the official leadership was wrong. 

Twenty years after the Civil War we had let 
our Army and Navy sink to a point below that 
of any third-class power in Europe. Then we 
began to build up the Navy. The Navy is more 
important to us than any other branch of the 
service; and gradually our people grew to ap- 
preciate this. In 1898 came the Spanish War. 
We did badly; but the Spaniards did worse. As 
that profound philosopher who writes under the 
name of "Mr. Dooley" put it: "We were in a 
dream; but the Spaniards were in a trance." 
However, as a result we did bring our Navy up to 



the fourth or fifth position among the navies of 
the big powers, and we did raise our Army until 
it was capable of being expanded to a hun- 
dred thousand. But immediately that the war 
was over Congress, probably, I regret to say, re- 
flecting popular indifference, sagged back.* 
In 1901, under the malign leadership of cer- 

* Certain adherents of the Administration, in endeavoring 
untruthfully to defend it, have actually asserted that while 
I was President I did not myself do enough to upbuild the 
Army and Navy! Of course these individuals know per- 
fectly well that the criticism aimed at me while I was Pres- 
ident was invariably because I was supposed to be too mili- 
taristic, and my critics always condemned me for endeavor- 
ing to force Congress to go farther than it was willing to go 
in building up the Army and Navy. During my term in the 
Presidency the Navy was increased threefold in strength 
and at least sixfold in efficiency; the Army was certainly 
doubled in efficiency. I did my best to get Congress to do 
much more than it would do. I accomplished the very 
utmost that by appeal and argument I could get the people 
to support. Beginning with my first message to Congress, 
on December 3d, 1901, and in every year in my subsequent 
messages, I at length and in detail argued for "preparedness 
in advance," for "forethought and preparation," in building 
up our naval and military forces, in favor of training "for 
years" in advance our crews, for "no cessation in adding to 
the effective units of the fighting fleet," for a general staff, 
for keeping only the military posts and navy yards demanded 
by military needs, etc., etc. I repeated these arguments in 
dozens of speeches in every quarter of the Union. My mes- 
sages to Congress and these speeches, in which I so often 
and at such length argued for full preparedness in advance, 
are open to any one who has access to a public library. 



tain men on the Senate Naval Committee, Con- 
gress actually stopped making any appropriation 
whatever for fighting ships. During the suc- 
ceeding eight years, however, the interrupted 
work was resumed. The Navy was steadily built 
up in numbers and still more in efficiency ; shoot- 
ing and fleet maneuvering on a large scale were 
for the first time treated as they should have 
been treated; and the result was that in 1909 our 
fleet stood second among the fleets of the world 
and was in shape to guarantee us against the 
aggression of any foreign power. This was then 
our first duty; and it had been accomplished. 
Meanwhile the efficiency of the Army had like- 
wise been greatly increased, as was shown by the 
contrast between the handling of the expedition- 
ary force to Cuba under General Barry and the 
handling of the army corps under General Shaf- 
ter six or eight years previously. But very prop- 
erly the men who were alive to the need of na- 
tional defence had to devote their chief attention 
to the Navy; and it was impossible to get the 
public to consider both our real military and our 
real naval needs. 

Then came the awful cataclysm of the present 
world war. During the years 1913 and 1914 our 
Navy deteriorated with frightful rapidity. This 
was partly due to the way it was handled 
in connection with our absurd and humiliating 



little make-believe war with Mexico. Our ships 
were not maneuvered and were never trained in 
fleet or squadron gunnery during these two 
years; and in consequence of this, among other 
causes, our fleet now stands certainly not higher 
than fifth among the nations in point of effi- 
ciency and is not fit at this moment to defend 
us from serious attack. 

The events of the last year have shown that 
all who believed that the most frightful wrong- 
doing by warlike nations could be averted by the 
opinion of civilized mankind as a whole have 
been utterly in error. What is happening in this 
year 1916 shows that not the slightest particle 
of advance in international morality has been 
made during the century that has elapsed since 
the close of the Napoleonic wars. This failure 
is quite as much due to the misconduct of the 
pacifists as to the misconduct of the militarists. 
The milk-and-water statesmanship of the Amer- 
ican Government during the past year has been a 
direct aid to the statesmanship of blood-and-iron 
across the water; it may not be as wicked, but 
it is far more contemptible. The United States 
has signally and culpably failed to keep its prom- 
ises made in the Hague Conventions, and to stand 
for the right. Instead, it has taken refuge in the 
world-old neutrality between right and wrong 
which is always so debasing for the man prac- 



tising it. As has been well said, such a neutral is 
the ignoblest work of God. 

There was much excuse for a general failure 
of Americans to understand the danger to Amer- 
ica prior to what happened in this world war. 
But now there is no excuse whatever. Now, 
thanks to our own feeble shirking of duty, we 
know that if any great nation menaces us, no 
matter how innocent of offence we may be, we 
have absolutely nothing to expect from other na- 
tions. Most assuredly the neutrality we have 
kept between right and wrong when Belgium was 
trodden under foot will be repaid us if our turn 
comes. Small blame will attach to the nations 
which grinningly quote our own neutral procla- 
mations and say that they themselves intend in 
their turn to be neutral not only in deed but 
even in thought, if any European or Asiatic mili- 
tary power concludes to take from us the Panama 
Canal or Hawaii or Porto Rico or to seize and 
hold for ransom New York or San Francisco. 
Moreover, this war has made it evident that 
armies of hundreds of thousands of men can be 
transported not only across the narrow but 
across the broad seas. England's great navy has 
made the ocean a barrier to her foes, and a high- 
way for herself, and it is only Britain's navy 
which has saved her from utter disgrace. 

Let us profit alike by Belgium's heroic example 


in the present, and by the terrible fate brought 
on her by her lack of forethought and prepared- 
ness in the past. At present, in spite of the shat- 
tering disasters of the last year and a quarter, 
and although only a tiny fraction of her territory 
is left unconquered, Belgium's army is stronger 
and more efficient than ever before. It numbers 
about 120,000 fighting men, with over 400 guns 
and thousands of machine guns and in addition 
first-class services of aviation, food supply, sani- 
tation, manufacture of ammunition and the like. 
There are fourteen centers for the drilling of 
recruits, and excellent schools for the officers. 
The morale of the army is extraordinary. I 
know of nothing finer in history than the way 
in which this army has been raised and main- 
tained by the Belgian nation in the midst of a 
cataclysm well-nigh unparalleled in the history 
of nations. But this cataclysm, this frightful 
and crushing disaster to Belgium, occurred pre- 
cisely because no such effort was put forth be- 
fore the event. The splendid heroism of the 
present can only repair a small part of the horri- 
ble damage due to the unpreparedness of the 
past. Belgium has suffered the last extremities 
of woe; and she would have gone almost un- 
scathed if before the war came she had prepared 
an army as strong relatively to her then strength 



as the present army is strong relative to her pres- 
ent weakness. 

England, during the first year of the war, af- 
forded a lamentable example of the punishment 
that will surely in the end befall any nation which 
fails to take its duties seriously and to prepare 
herself thoroughly in advance by universal mili- 
tary training of her citizens, and by a high stand- 
ard of loyal social efficiency, for the evil day 
when war may come on the land. Her navy did 
admirably from the beginning thanks to men 
like Lord Fisher, who built it up, and to Prince 
Louis of Battenberg, who mobilized it in the 
nick of time, with an efficiency comparable to that 
which marked the mobilization of the German 
army. Her soldiers at the front behaved splen- 
didly. But the English people as a whole did not 
appear to advantage when compared, for in- 
stance, with the French, until more than a year 
had gone by. This was true of their capitalists. 
It was still more true of their workingmen com- 
pare their striking workmen with the French 
workingmen, who toiled night and day, and ex- 
changed brotherly greetings with the generals at 
the front. It was true of their men in Parliament 
and the press who opposed universal military 
service. Over a year passed before they began 
to produce the instruments and munitions of war 
in a way at all comparable with what was being 



done in France and Germany. Her people have 
as a whole volunteered in magnificent manner; 
but those who wished to shirk their duty were 
permitted to shirk their duty, and this was a thor- 
oughly evil thing. Now, eighteen months after 
the outbreak of the war, her people are working 
with extraordinary resolution and patriotism, 
but it is not possible wholly to undo the evil done 
by the lack of preparedness in advance. 

If there were no lesson in this for us, I cer- 
tainly should not dwell on the fact. The im- 
portant point for us to remember is that if Eng- 
land did not do as well as she ought to have done, 
she did infinitely better than we would have 
done; and moreover she has learned her lesson 
and is doing well, whereas we have not learned 
our lesson, and our national leaders, executive, 
legislative, and non-official, from Mr. Wilson and 
Mr. Bryan to such Congressmen as Messrs. 
Kitchin and Hay, are still acting in a way that 
brings dishonor to the American name and that 
is fraught with the gravest peril to the future 
of the nation. Capital books have been inspired 
by this war; Owen Wister's "Pentecost of 
Calamity," for instance; but in its practical 
teachings the best book that this war has pro- 
duced is Oliver's "Ordeal by Battle." I wish 
that every American would read Mr. Oliver's 
book and would realize that everything there said 



as to both the shortcomings and the needs of the 
English people applies with far greater force to 
the American people at the present time. Col. 
Arthur Lee, M.P., in an address to his con- 
stituents which all Americans should read, has 
clearly placed before the British people the vital 
needs and duties of the hour. Our politicians and 
our self-styled humanitarians and peace lovers, 
if they would read this address with open minds, 
would profit much. 

Most certainly we should avoid with horror 
the ruthlessness and brutality and the cynical 
indifference to international right which the 
Government of Germany has; shown during the 
past year, and we should shun, as we would shun 
the plague, the production in this country of a 
popular psychology like that which in Germany 
has produced a public opinion that backs the 
Government in its actions in Belgium, and cheers 
popular songs which exult in the slaughter of 
women and children on the high seas. But if we 
value the heritage bequeathed to us by Washing- 
ton and saved for us by Lincoln, we will at once 
begin the effort to emulate the German efficiency, 
efficiency which is not only military but also so- 
cial and industrial. 

We in America claim that a democracy can be 
as efficient for defence as an autocracy, as a des- 
potism. It is idle to make this claim, it is idle 



to utter windy eloquence in Fourth of July 
speeches, and to prate in public documents about 
our greatness and our adherence to democratic 
principles and the mission we have to do good 
on the earth by spineless peace fulness, if we are 
not able, if we are not willing, to make our words 
count by means of our deeds. Germany stands 
as the antithesis of democracy. She exults in her 
belief that in England democracy has broken 
down. She exults in the fact that in America 
democracy has shown itself so utterly futile that 
it has not even dared to speak about wrongdoing 
committed against others, and has not dared to 
do more than speak, without acting, when the 
wrong was done against itself. She openly ex- 
ults in and counts upon the fact that the profes- 
sional German-Americans are disloyal to the 
United States. She uses the politicians who are 
afraid of the German-American vote. 

Every professional pacifist in America, every 
representative of commercialized greed, every 
apostle of timidity, every sinister creature who 
betrays his country by pandering to the anti- 
American feeling which masquerades under 
some species of hyphenated Americanism all 
these men and women and their representatives 
in public life are at this moment working against 
democracy. If the democratic ideal fails, if de- 
mocracy goes down, they will be primarily to 



blame. For democracy will assuredly go down 
if it once be shown that it is incompatible with 
national security. The law of self-preservation 
is the primary law for nations as for individu- 
als. If a nation cannot protect itself under a 
democratic form of government, then it will 
either die or evolve a new form of government. 

I believe that our people will realize these 
facts. I believe that our people will make democ- 
racy successful. They can only do so if they 
show by their actions that they understand the 
responsibilities that go with democracy. The 
first and the greatest of these responsibilities is 
the responsibility of national self-defence. We 
must be prepared to defend a country governed 
in accordance with the democratic ideal or else 
we are guilty of treason to that ideal. To de- 
fend the country it is necessary to organize the 
country in peace, or it cannot be organized in 
war. A riot of unrestricted individualism in 
time of peace means impotence for sustained and 
universal national effort toward a common end 
in war time. Neither businessman nor wage- 
worker should be permitted to do anything detri- 
mental to the people as a whole; and if they act 
honestly and efficiently they should in all ways 
be encouraged. There should be social cohesion. 
We must devise methods by which under our 
democratic government we shall secure the so- 



cialization of industry which autocratic Germany 
has secured, so that business may be encouraged 
and yet controlled in the general interest, and the 
wage-workers guaranteed full justice and their 
full share of the reward of industry, and yet re- 
quired to show the corresponding efficiency and 
public spirit that justify their right to an in- 
creased reward. But the vital fact to remember 
is that ultimately it will prove worse than use- 
less to have our people prosper unless they are 
able to defend this prosperity ; to fight for it. 

Let us, then, make up our minds to prepare; 
and make up our minds just what we want to 
prepare to do. We have the Panama Canal. 
Many of our Congressmen have in the past con- 
sistently opposed the upbuilding of the navy and 
the fortification of the Panama Canal. These 
men may mean well, but their action has repre- 
sented an unworthy abandonment of national 
duty; and they have shown themselves to be the 
most dangerous enemies of this republic, men 
unfit to be trusted in public life in any position 
whatsoever. If the American people wish to 
support such public servants, then let them in- 
stantly abandon the Canal, giving it back to Pan- 
ama or turning it over to Japan or Germany 
or England or any other people whose ruling class 
is composed of men and not of eunuchs. Let 
them also abandon the Monroe Doctrine; let 



them abandon all pretense of protecting life and 
property in Mexico. In short, let us take the po- 
sition of the China of the Occident and await 
with helpless weakness the day when our terri- 
tory will be divided among more competent peo- 

But if we intend to play our part as a great 
nation and to be prepared to defend our own in- 
terests and to do good to others, let us decide 
what we want to do and then make ready to do it. 
South of the Equator, that is, south of the line of 
approaches on each side to the Panama Canal, 
we need no longer bother about the Monroe Doc- 
trine. Brazil, Chile, the Argentine, are capable 
themselves of handling the Monroe Doctrine for 
all South America, excepting the extreme north- 
ern part. Consider the case of Argentina, for 
instance. In Argentina, as in Switzerland, they 
have universal military service. This has been 
of enormous use to them industrially and socially. 
It has also given them at present an army of 
close to half a million men, although they have 
not one-tenth the population of the United States. 
Argentina is far more fitted to defend its own 
territory from a sudden attack by a powerful 
enemy than is the United States. We would do 
well to sit at her feet and learn the lesson she can 
thus teach us. 

Therefore we need bother with the Monroe 


Doctrine only so far as the approaches to the 
Panama Canal are concerned, that is, so far as 
concerns the territories between our southern 
border and, roughly speaking, the Equator. We 
do not have to bother about the Monroe Doctrine 
and Canada, for during the past year Canada 
has shown herself infinitely more efficient than 
we are. 

This Administration was elected on the spe- 
cific promise to give freedom to the Philippines. 
The United States must keep its promises. No 
greater service has been rendered by any people 
to another during the past hundred years than 
we have rendered to the Philippines and than 
we have rendered to Cuba also. In February, 
1909, when the battle-fleet returned from its voy- 
age around the world, the United States was in 
point of military, that is, primarily naval, effi- 
ciency in such shape that there was no people 
that would have ventured to attempt to wrong 
us ; and under such circumstances we could afford 
to keep the Philippines and to continue the work 
that we were doing. But since then we have rela- 
tively to other powers sunk incalculably from a 
military standpoint; we are infinitely less fitted 
than we were to defend ourselves. Above all, we 
have promised the Filipinos independence in 
terms which were inevitably understood to be in- 



dependence in the immediate future ; and we have 
begun to govern them weakly. 

Such indecision in international conduct shows 
that this people ought not to undertake the gov- 
ernment of a distant dependency, and this both 
from military reasons and because of the need of 
keeping promises that have been made. Let us, 
then, as speedily as possible, leave the Philip- 
pines; and as the Philippines desire us to leave 
we would be quit of all moral obligations for 
them, and would under no circumstances be 
obliged to defend them from other nations. 

There remain Alaska, Hawaii, our own coasts, 
and the Panama Canal and its approaches, as the 
military problem with which we should grapple; 
and with this problem we should grapple in the 
manner already set forth in this book. 

A democracy should not be willing to hire 
somebody else to do its fighting. The man who 
claims the right to vote should be a man able and 
willing to fight at need for the country which 
gives him the vote. I believe in democracy in 
time of peace ; and I believe in it in time of war. 
I believe in universal service. Universal service 
represents the true democratic ideal. No man, 
rich or poor, should be allowed to shirk it. In 
time of war every citizen of the Republic should 
be held absolutely to serve the Republic whenever 
the Republic needs him or her. The pacifist and 



the hyphenated American should be sternly re- 
quired to fight and made to serve in the army and 
to share the work and danger of their braver and 
more patriotic countrymen; and any dereliction 
of duty on their part should be punished with the 
sharpest rigor. The man who will not fit him- 
self to fight for his country has no right to a 
vote in shaping that country's policy. As for the 
woman who approves the song, "I Did Not Raise 
My Boy To Be a Soldier," her place is in China 
or by preference in a harem and not in the 
United States. But she is all right if she will 
change the song into "I Did Not Raise My 
Boy To Be the Only Soldier." Every woman 
who has not raised her boy to be a soldier at need 
has in unwomanly fashion striven to put a dou- 
ble burden on some other boy whose mother had 
a patriotic soul. The much-praised "volunteer" 
system means nothing but encouraging brave 
men to do double duty and incur double risk in 
order that cowards and shirks and mere money- 
getters may sit at home in a safety bought by 
the lives of better men. 

The United States has and deserves to have 
only one friend in the world. This is the 
United States. We have ourselves treated the 
Hague Conventions as scraps of paper; and we 
cannot expect any one else to show the respect 
for such treaties which we have lacked. Our 



safety and therefore the safety of democratic in- 
stitutions rests on our own strength and only on 
our own strength. If we are a true democracy, 
if we really believe in government of the people 
by the people and for the people, if we believe in 
social and industrial justice to be achieved 
through the people, and therefore in the right 
of the people to demand the service of all the 
people, let us make the Army fundamentally an 
army of the whole people. 

This will be carrying out the democratic ideal. 
The policy advocated for Britain by Lord Rob- 
erts was really the necessary complement to the 
policy advocated for Britain by Lloyd-George. 
In a democracy service should be required of 
every man, in peace and in war ; we should guar- 
antee to every man his rights, and require from 
each man the full performance of his duties. It 
may well be that in the end we shall find it worth 
while to insist that all our young men, at their 
entrance to manhood, perform a year's industrial 
service in the harvest fields, in city sanitation, 
on the roads, anywhere. Such service would be 
equally beneficial to the son of the millionaire 
and to the boy who grows up in the crowded 
quarters of our great cities or out on lonely farms 
in the back country. 

This is for the future. As for the present, 
it is certain that a half year's military service 



would be a priceless boon to these young men 
themselves, as well as to the nation. It would 
tend to social cohesion. We would gain a genu- 
ine citizens' army, and we would gain a far 
higher type of citizenship. Our young men, at 
the outset of their lives, would be trained not 
merely to shoot and to drill, which are only small 
parts of military training but to habits of bod- 
ily endurance and moral self-mastery, to com- 
mand and to obey, to act on their own initiative 
and to understand and promptly execute orders, 
to respect themselves and to respect others, and 
to understand that they are to serve their coun- 
try with deeds and not words only. Under such 
conditions the young American would enter man- 
hood accustomed to take pride in that disciplined 
spirit of orderly self-reliance combined with abil- 
ity to work with others, which is the most essen- 
tial element in the success of a great, free, mod- 
ern democracy. 



AN astonishing proof of the readiness of 
many persons to pay heed exclusively to 
words and not at all to deeds is supplied by the 
statement of the defenders of this Administration 
that President Wilson has "kept us out of war 
with Mexico" and has "avoided interference in 
Mexico." These are the words. The deeds have 
been: first, an unbroken course of more or less 
furtive meddling in the internal affairs of Mex- 
ico carried to a pitch which imposes on this na- 
tion a grave responsibility for the wrong-doing 
of the victorious factions ; and, second, the plung- 
ing of this country into what was really a futile 
and inglorious little war with Mexico, a war en- 
tered into witn no adequate object, and aban- 
doned without the achievement of any object 
whatever, adequate or inadequate. 

To say that we did not go to war with Mexico 
is a mere play upon words. A quarter of the 
wars of history have been entered into and car- 
ried through without any preliminary declaration 



of war and often without any declaration of war 
at all. The seizure of the leading seaport city 
of another country, the engagement and defeat 
of the troops of that country, and the retention 
of the territory thus occupied for a number of 
months, constitute war ; and denial that it is war 
can only serve to amuse the type of intellect 
which would assert that Germany has not been 
at war with Belgium because Germany did not 
originally declare war on Belgium. President 
Wilson's war only resulted in the sacrifice of a 
score of American lives and a hundred or two 
of the lives of Mexicans ; it was entirely purpose- 
less, has served no good object, has achieved 
nothing and has been abandoned by Mr. Wilson 
without obtaining the object because of which 
it was nominally entered into; it can therefore 
rightly be stigmatized as a peculiarly unwise, ig- 
noble and inefficient war; but it was war never- 

This has been bad enough. But the general 
course of the Administration toward Mexico has 
been worse and even more productive of wide and 
far-reaching harm. Here again, word-splitters 
may, if they desire, endeavor to show that the 
President did not "intervene" in Mexico; but if 
so they would be obliged to make a fine discrimi- 
nation between intervention and officious and 
mischievous intermeddling. Whether it is said 



that President Wilson "intervened" in Mexican 
affairs, or that he merely intermeddled, so as to 
produce much evil and no good and to make 
us responsible for the actions of a peculiarly 
lawless, ignorant and blood-thirsty faction, 
is of small importance. The distinction is one 
merely of words. The simple fact is that thanks 
to President Wilson's action and at times his 
inaction has been the most effective and vicious 
form of action this country has become par- 
tially (and guiltily) responsible for some of the 
worst acts ever committed even in the civil wars 
of Mexico. 

When Mr. Wilson became President of the 
United States, Huerta was President of Mexico 
On any theory of non-interference with the af- 
fairs of our neighbors, on any theory of avoid- 
ing war and of refusing to take sides with or 
become responsible for the deeds of blood-stained 
contending factions, it was the clear duty of Mr 
Wilson to accept Mr. Huerta as being President 
of Mexico. Unless Mr. Wilson was prepared ac- 
tively to interfere in Mexico and to establish 
some sort of protectorate over it, he had no more 
business to pass judgment upon the methods of 
Mr. Huerta's selection (which had occurred prior 
to Mr. Wilson's advent to power) than Mexico 
would have had to refuse to recognize Mr, Hayes 
as President on the ground that it was not satis- 



fied with his economic policy and moreover sym- 
pathized with Mr. Tilden's side of the contro- 
versy. And if Mr. Wilson made up his mind to 
interfere in Mexico for of course the most 
trenchant type of interference was refusal to rec- 
ognize the Mexican President he should have 
notified Foreign Powers of his proposed action 
in order to prevent so far as possible Huerta's 
recognition by them. President Wilson inter- 
fered in such feeble fashion as to accomplish the 
maximum of evil to us and to other foreigners 
and the Mexicans, and the minimum of good to 
anybody. He hit ; but he hit softly. Now, no one 
should ever hit if it can be avoided; but never 
should any one "hit soft." 

When Mr. Wilson refused to recognize 
Huerta, he committed a definite act of interfer- 
ence of the most pronounced type. At the same 
time he and Mr. Bryan looked on with folded 
arms and without a protest of any kind while 
American citizens were murdered or robbed or 
shamefully maltreated in all parts of Mexico by 
the different sets of banditti who masqueraded 
as soldiers of the different factions. He main- 
tained for a long time a friendly intercourse with 
one chief of political adventurers through irregu- 
larly appointed diplomatic agents, and he adopted 
an openly offensive attitude toward the chief of 
another set, although he was then the de facto 



head of whatever government Mexico had. Then 
he turned against this once-favored bandit in 
the interest of a third bandit. By his action in 
permitting the transmission of arms over the bor- 
der President Wilson not only actively aided the 
insurrection but undoubtedly furnished it with 
the means essential to its triumph, while at the 
same time his active interference prevented 
Huerta from organizing an effective resistance. 
His defenders allege that he could not properly 
have forbidden the transmission of arms to the 
revolutionaries across the border. The answer is 
that he did forbid it at intervals. He thereby 
showed that he was taking an active interest in 
the arming of the revolutionaries, that he permit- 
ted it when he chose to do so and stopped it in- 
termittently whenever he thought it best to stop 
it, and was therefore entirely responsible for it. 
The nominal rights which the contending fac- 
tions championed, and the actual and hideous 
wrongs done by all of them, were not our affair 
save in so far as Americans and other foreigners 
were maltreated. We may individually sympa- 
thize, as, for instance, I personally do, with the 
general purpose of the program for division of 
the lands among the Mexican cultivators, an- 
nounced by Carranza, Villa and other revolution- 
ary leaders; but this no more justified interfer- 
ence on our part than belief in the wisdom of 



the single tax for the United States by some for- 
eign ruler would warrant his interference in the 
internal affairs of the United States. Moreover 
nothing in the career of Carranza and Villa or 
in the conduct of the Mexican people at present 
justifies us in any belief that this program will in 
any real sense be put into effect. 

However, the interference took place. By the 
course President Wilson pursued toward Huerta 
and by the course he pursued toward Villa and 
Carranza, he actively interfered in the internal 
affairs of Mexico. He actively sided with the 
faction which ultimately triumphed and which 
immediately split into other factions which are 
now no less actively engaged in fighting one an- 
other. Personally, I do not think that the Ad- 
ministration should have interfered in this man- 
ner. But one thing is certain. When the Admin- 
istration did interfere, it was bound to accept the 
responsibility for its acts. It could not give any 
aid to the revolutionaries without accepting a 
corresponding share of responsibility for their 
deeds and misdeeds. It could not aid them be- 
cause of their attitude on the land question with- 
out also assuming a corresponding share of re- 
sponsibility for their attitude toward religion and 
toward the professors of religion. The United 
States would have had no responsibility whatever 
for what was done to the Church by any faction 



which did not owe its triumph to action by the 
United States. But when the United States 
takes part in civil war in Mexico, as Messrs. 
Wilson and Bryan forced our Government to 
take part, this country has thereby made itself 
responsible for the frightful wrong-doing, for the 
terrible outrages committed by the victorious 
revolutionists on hundreds of the religious people 
of both sexes. 

To avoid the chance of anything but willful 
misrepresentation, let me emphasize my position. 
I hold that it was not our affair to interfere one 
way or the other in the purely internal affairs 
of Mexico, so far as they affected only Mexican 
citizens ; because if the time came when such in- 
terference was absolutely required it could only 
be justified if it were thorough-going and effec- 
tive. Moreover, I hold that it was our clear duty 
to have interfered promptly and effectively on 
behalf of American citizens who were wronged, 
instead of behaving as President Wilson and Sec- 
retary Bryan actually did behave. To our dis- 
grace as a nation, they forced American citizens 
to claim and accept from British and German 
officials and officers the protection which our own 
government failed to give. When we did inter- 
fere in Mexican internal affairs to aid one fac- 
tion, we thereby made ourselves responsible for 
the deeds of that faction, and we have no right to 



try to shirk that responsibility. Messrs. Wilson 
and Bryan declined to interfere to protect 
the rights of Americans or of other foreigners 
in Mexico. But they interfered as between 
the Mexicans themselves in the interest of one 
faction and with the result of placing that faction 
in power. They therefore bound themselves 
to accept responsibility for the deeds and mis- 
deeds of that faction, and of the further factions 
into which it then split, in so far as Mr. Wilson 
sided with one of these as against the other. 

Not long ago President Wilson, in a speech at 
Swarthmore, declared that "Nowhere in this 
hemisphere can any government endure which is 
stained by blood," and at Mobile that "we will 
never condone iniquity because it is most con- 
venient to do so." At the very time he uttered 
those lofty words, the leaders and lieutenants of 
the faction which he was actively supporting 
were shooting their prisoners in cold blood by 
scores after each engagement, were tortur- 
ing men reputed to be rich, were driving 
hundreds of peaceful people from their 
homes, were looting and defiling churches and 
treating ecclesiastics and religious women with 
every species of abominable infamy, from mur- 
der and rape down. In other words, at the very 
time that the President was stating that "no- 
where on this hemisphere can any government 



endure which is stained by blood," he was ac- 
tively engaged in helping install in power a gov- 
ernment which was not only stained by blood 
but stained by much worse than blood. At the 
very time that he was announcing that he would 
"never condone iniquity because it was conven- 
ient to do so," he was not merely condoning but 
openly assisting iniquity and installing in 
power a set of men whose actions were those of 
ferocious barbarians. 

Remember that I am not engaged in defending 
the factional opponents of these victorious 
wrong-doers. There is not evidence sufficient to 
decide which of the many factions behaved worst. 
But there is ample material to decide that they 
all behaved atrociously. Apparently the Admin- 
istration took the ground that inasmuch as Mr. 
Huerta and his followers were bad men, it was 
our duty to condone the evil committed by their 
opponents. Father R. H. Tierney, of New York 
City, an entirely responsible man, informs me 
that when (in company with two other gentlemen 
whose names he gives me) he called upon Mr. 
Bryan to bring to his attention the abominable 
outrages committed on certain nuns by the fol- 
lowers of Carranza and Villa, Mr. Bryan in- 
formed Father Tierney that he had information 
that "the followers of Huerta had committed sim- 
ilar outrages on two American women from 



Iowa!" (This sentence has been read to Father 
Tierney, who states that it describes the inter- 
view with exactness. The original of the affida- 
vits herein quoted are in the possession of Father 
Tierney, 59 East Eighty-third street, New York 
City, and Father Kelly, and will be shown by 
them to any reputable person.) Apparently Mr. 
Bryan believed this disposed of the situation and 
relieved the revolutionaries of blame. 

Surely, it ought not to be necessary to say that 
if the facts as thus stated to and by Mr. Bryan 
were true (and if there was any doubt immediate 
investigation as to their truth by the government 
was demanded), then the way to get justice was 
not by treating one infamy as wiping out the 
other but by exacting the sternest retribution for 
both and effectively providing against the repe- 
tition of either. Even assuming for the moment 
that the attitude of the Administration had not so 
committed the government that it was its duty to 
interfere on behalf of the nuns thus outraged, 
Mr. Bryan's statement to Father Tierney shows 
almost incredible callousness on his part to the 
most dreadful type of suffering, to acts far worse 
than the mere murder of any man. It seems lit- 
erally impossible that any representative of the 
American government in high office could fail to 
be stirred to his depths by such wrong, or could 
have failed to insist on the immediate and con- 



dign punishment of the wrong-doers and on the 
amplest safeguarding against all possible repe- 
tition of the wrong. Apparently the only way 
in which it occurred to Mr. Bryan to take any 
action against the faction whose adherents had 
perpetrated these hideous wrongs on the two 
American women was by encouraging another 
faction which he must have known in advance 
and certainly did know after the event would 
commit and had committed wrongs equally 

I have before me a copy of El Heraldo de 
Toluca of September I3th, 1914. It contains a 
manifesto on behalf of the victorious revolution- 
aries of the party of Messrs. Carranza and Villa, 
dealing with the "conditions under which the Ro- 
man Worship will have to be practiced." (I 
translate into English.) Among the preambles 
are the following: I, that the ministers of the 
Catholic Worship circulate doctrines which are 
not in accordance with the principles of the true 
Christ; 2, that on account of the learning that 
these ministers have acquired they cannot in the 
minds of those who possess equal or greater 
learning (but who differ from them in opinion) 
pass as sincere believers in the doctrines they 
preach and that they thereby exploit the ignor- 
ance of the ignorant masses ; 3, that inasmuch as 
this conduct harms people by frightening them 


with the fear of eternal punishment and thereby 
tends to make them subservient to the priesthood 
and that inasmuch as all kinds of people from 
workmen to capitalists give too much money to 
the churches and because of various other similar 
facts, the decree in question is promulgated. 

This decree includes the forbidding "of any 
sermons which will encourage fanaticism;" the 
proscribing of any fasts or similar practices ; the 
prohibition of any money being paid for chris- 
tenings, marriages or other matters; the prohi- 
bition of the soliciting of contributions (that is, 
the passing of the plate) ; the prohibition of cele- 
bration of masses for the dead or the celebration 
of more than two masses a week ; the prohibition 
of confession and with this object in view the 
closing of the churches excepting once a week 
at the hour of the masses; and, finally, the pro- 
hibition of more than one priest living in Toluca 
and the requirement that he, when he walks in 
the streets, shall be dressed absolutely as a ci- 
vilian without anything in his costume revealing 
the fact that he is a minister. In order to be per- 
mitted to exercise the functions thus limited, the 
priest is required to affix his signature of accept- 
ance to the foregoing regulations. 

Now, in various South American countries 
there have been bitter contests between the Cler- 
icals and the anti-Clericals and again and again 



the extremists of each side have taken positions 
which in the eyes of sensible Americans of all 
religious creeds are intolerable. There are in 
our own country individuals who sincerely believe 
that the Masons or the Knights of Columbus, or 
the members of the Junior Order of American 
Mechanics, or the Catholic Church or the Metho- 
dist Church or the Ethical Culture Society, rep- 
resent what is all wrong. There are sincere men 
in the United States who by argument desire to 
convince their fellows belonging to any one of the 
bodies above mentioned (and to any one of many 
others) that they are mistaken, either when they 
go to church or when they do not go to church, 
when they "preach sermons of a fanatical type" 
or inveigh against "sermons of a fanatical type," 
when they put money in the plate to help support 
a church or when they refuse to support a church, 
when they join secret societies or sit on the 
mourners' bench or practise confession. Accord- 
ing to our ideas, all men have an absolute right 
to favor or oppose any of these practices. But, 
according to our ideas, no men have any right to 
endeavor to make the government either favor 
or oppose them. According to our ideas, we 
should emphatically disapprove of any action in 
any Spanish- American country which is designed 
to oppress either Catholics or Protestants, either 
Masons or anti-Masons, either Liberals or Cler- 



icals, or to interfere with religious liberty, 
whether by intolerance exercised for or against 
any religious creed, or by people who do or do 
not believe in any religious creed. 

I hold that these should be our sympathies. 
But I emphatically hold that it is not the duty 
of this government to try to make other countries 
act in accordance with these sympathies, and, 
above all, not the duty of the government to help 
some other government which acts against these 
great principles with which we sympathize. 
Messrs. Wilson and Bryan by their actions have 
assumed a certain undoubted responsibility for 
the behavior of the victorious faction in Mexico 
which has just taken the kind of stand indicated 
in the proclamation above quoted; a stand, of 
course, hostile to every principle of real religious 
liberty, a stand which if applied logically would 
mean that no minister of any church could in 
public wear a high-cut waistcoat or perhaps even 
a black frock-coat, and which would put a stop 
even to such common-place actions as the passing 
of the plate in any church to encourage home 

But this attitude is only one of the offences 
committed. Catholic schools almost everywhere 
in Mexico have been closed, institutions of learn- 
ing sacked and libraries and astronomical and 
other machinery destroyed, the priests and nuns 



expelled by hundreds and some of the priests 
killed and some of the nuns outraged. Arch- 
bishop Blenk of New Orleans, Father Tierney, 
editor of America, Father Kelly, president of 
the Catholic Church Extension Society, Mr. Pe- 
try, one of the directors of the Catholic Church 
Extension Society, and a Mexican bishop whose 
name I do not give because it might involve him 
in trouble, came to see me at my house; and in 
Chicago I saw other priests and refugees from 
Mexico, both priests, nuns and lay brothers. The 
statements and affidavits, submitted to me in the 
original and copies of which I have before me 
as I write, set forth conditions which are liter- 
ally appalling and for which, be it remembered, 
the actions of Messrs. Wilson and Bryan have 
made this country partly responsible. 

For example, Archbishop Blenk submitted to 
me an affidavit by the prioress of the Bare-footed 
Carmelite Nuns of the Convent of Queretaro. 
This sets forth from the personal knowledge of 
the prioress how the churches have been pro- 
faned by soldiers entering them on horseback, 
breaking statues, trampling on relics and scatter- 
ing on the floor the Sacred Hosts and even throw- 
ing them into the horses' feed; how in some 
churches the revolutionaries have offered mock 
masses and have in other ways, some of them too 
repulsive and loathsome to mention, behaved pre- 


cisely as the Red Terrorists of the French Revo- 
lution behaved in the churches of Paris ; how, for 
example, St. Anthony's Church at Aguascali- 
entes has been made into a legislative hall and 
the Church of St. Joseph at Queretaro and the 
great convent of the Carmelites and the lyceum 
of the Christian Brothers all have been confisca- 
ted; how the church property has been seques- 
tered and the archives burned and the men and 
women in the cloistered communities expelled 
without being allowed to take even an extra suit 
of clothes or a book of prayer. 

The prioress states that she has herself seen 
in Mexico City nuns who have been "victims of 
the passions of the revolutionary soldiers," and 
some whom she found in their own homes, others 
in hospitals and in maternity houses, who in con- 
sequence are about to be delivered of children. 
She deposes: "I have seen soldiers dressed up 
in chasubles, stoles, maniples and cinctures, with 
copes and altar linen, and their women dressed up 
in albs, surplices, and corporals used as handker- 
chiefs." She has seen the sacred vessels pro- 
faned in a thousand ways. She describes meet- 
ing seven nuns who had been outraged, whom she 
directed to a maternity house, and who had aban- 
doned themselves to utter despair, saying "that 
they were already damned and abandoned by 
God and they cursed the hour of their religious 



profession." She describes how she escaped 
from Quaretaro with nuns who had been obliged 
to hide in private houses in order to escape being 
taken to the barracks by the soldiers. She de- 
scribes how she had daily to beg the food neces- 
sary to sustain the twenty-four sisters with 
whom she escaped. 

In Chicago I saw a French priest, Father Dom- 
inic Fournier, of the Congregation of the Pas- 
sion, who had just escaped from Mexico with two 
young Spanish students for the priesthood. He 
had escaped from the City of Toluca with noth- 
ing whatever, not even a Rosary. He and the 
two novices described to me their experience in 
Toluca. The churches and religious houses were 
sacked and confiscated and the soldiers and their 
women indulged in orgies before and around the 
altars. One of the lay brothers named Mariano 
Gonzales tried to save some of the things from 
the church. The revolutionists seized him and 
accused him of robbing, the state. He was shot 
by a file of soldiers on August 22nd, 1914, and his 
dead body was left all day long in the court in 
which Father Fournier and the other priests and 
the two novices who spoke to me and their asso- 
ciates were confined. They were kept in prison 
sixteen days and then allowed to go with nothing 
but what they .had on. 

I have seen the original of and have in my pos- 


session a translation of a letter written on Octo- 
ber 24th by a young girl of Toluca to her pastor 
who had been exiled. She described how the 
bishop had been heavily fined and exiled. She 
describes how the clubs of boys and girls for 
whom she had been working had been broken up, 
but how some of the boys to whom they used to 
give breakfast on Sunday mornings still occa- 
sionally come to see them; and she asks advice 
how to keep these clubs of the poor together. But 
the dreadful and pathetic part of the letter is con- 
tained in the following sentence: "Now I will 
ask you a question. Suppose some one falls into 
the power of the Zapatistas. Would it be better 
for her to take her own life rather than allow 
them to do their will and what they are accus- 
tomed to do? As I never thought such a thing 
could happen, I did not ask you before about it, 
but now I see it is quite possible. If we had not 
our good God in whom we trust, I think we would 
give way to despair." 

In other words, this girl who had been engaged 
in charitable work in connection with the church 
asks her pastor whether she is permitted to com- 
mit suicide in order to avoid the outrages to 
which so many hundreds of Mexican women, so 
many scores of nuns, have been exposed in the 
last few months. I cannot imagine any man of 
whatever creed or of no creed reading this let- 



ter without his blood tingling with horror and 
anger; and we Americans should bear in mind 
the fact that the actions of President Wilson and 
Secretary Bryan in supporting the Villistas (un- 
til President Wilson suddenly swapped bandits 
and supported the Carranzistas) have made us 
partly responsible for such outrages. 

I have been given and shown letters from refu- 
gees in Galveston, in Corpus Christi, in San An- 
tonio and Havana. These refugees include seven 
archbishops, six bishops, some hundreds of 
priests, and at least three hundred nuns. Most 
of these bishops and priests had been put in jail 
or in the penitentiary or otherwise confined and 
maltreated. Two-thirds of the institutions of 
higher learning in Mexico have been confiscated 
and more or less completely destroyed and a large 
part of the ordinary educational institutions have 
been treated in similar fashion. 

Many of the affidavits before me recite tortures 
so dreadful that I am unwilling to put them in 
print. It would be tedious to recite all the facts 
set forth in these affidavits. For instance, there 
is one, by Daniel R. Loweree, a priest of the dio- 
cese of Guadalajara, the son of an American fa- 
ther, and librarian of the Seminary and pro- 
fessor of chemistry. He describes what took 
place in Guadalajara. On July 2ist, about one 
hundred priests from the city and country round 



about were put in the jail, while the cathedral 
was used as a barracks. In the affidavit of Canon 
Jose Maria Vela, of the Cathedral of Zacatecas, 
he sets forth how the constitutionalists shot a 
priest named Velarde, how twenty-three priests 
were gathered together and under the orders of 
General Villa required to produce one million 
pesos within twenty-four hours, under penalty 
of being shot. A committee of the priests went 
out through the city begging from house to house 
and accepting even pennies from the children. A 
girl was forcibly violated by one of the soldiers 
in the room adjoining that in which these priests 
were kept. Finally, the citizens raised a couple 
of hundred thousand pesos and the priests were 
released and allowed to flee without any of their 
belongings. Seventeen of the fleeing priests are 
now in El Paso and their names are given in the 
document and those of some of them signed to an 
accompanying document. 

In an affidavit by the Reverend Michael Ku- 
bicza, of the Society of Jesus, whose father was 
a Hungarian physician, he describes how he was 
tortured in order to make him give up money. A 
soldier nicknamed Baca, in the presence of 
Colonel Fierro, put a horsehair rope around his 
neck and choked him until he became unconscious. 
When he came to, Baca fired a revolver near 
his head and commanded him to give up and tell 



him where the Jesuit treasures were buried. On 
answering that there were none, he was again 
choked until he was unconscious, and this was 
repeated a third time. The affidavit describes at 
length some of the sufferings of the priests in 

All kinds of other affidavits have been sub- 
mitted to me, dealing with torture and murder, 
as, for example, the killing of Father Alba, the 
parish priest of Cabra, the killing of the parish 
priest and vicar at Tula, the killing of the chap- 
lain and rector and vice-president of the Chris- 
tian Brothers' College, etc., etc. 

The one feature in the events narrated to me 
and set forth in the affidavits to me which can 
give any American the least satisfaction is the 
statement of the kindness with which the unfor- 
tunate refugees had been treated in Vera Cruz 
by the officers and men of the Army and Navy, 
particular mention being made of General 

What I have above stated is but a small part 
of the immense mass of facts available to the 
President (and Mr. Bryan) had they cared to 
examine them. They relate to outrages on Cath- 
olics. This is merely because the enormous ma- 
jority of the religious people of Mexico are Cath- 
olics. I should set them forth just as minutely 
if they had been inflicted by Catholics on Free- 


thinkers or Protestants or Masons I am myself 
both a Protestant and a Mason and I claim and 
exercise the right of full liberty of thought. 
Even if we had no responsibility for them, I 
nevertheless fail to see how any American could 
read the account of them without a feeling of 
burning indignation. As things actually are, 
shame must be mingled with our indignation. 
The action of the President (and Mr. Bryan) has 
been such as to make this country partly respon- 
sible for the frightful wrongs that have been 
committed on the Mexicans themselves. For the 
wrongs committed on Americans, and neither 
prevented nor redressed, our Government is not 
merely partly, but wholly, responsible. 

A year ago I was shown a letter from Naco, 
Arizona, written by a railway engineer on 
January 10, 1915. He mentions that five 
persons had been killed and forty-seven wounded 
on the American side of the boundary line 
by stray bullets shot by the Mexicans, and 
adds: "My wife was shot in the neck in our 
house, six hundred yards from the line, when 
she was reading. I would rather a thousand 
times be with Emperor Bill than an American 
citizen under such conditions." I have just been 
visited by a Boer gentleman, who has been resi- 
dent in Mexico for a dozen years ; after the Boer 
War he was exiled from Cape Colony and his 



property confiscated; but in Mexico he does not 
claim to be an American ; he clings eagerly to his 
British citizenship; for England, like Germany 
and France, does try to protect her citizens, 
whereas bitter experience has taught the average 
American citizen in Mexico that in his case, rob- 
bery and murder will bring no protest from his 
home government. 

At this moment the Administration is protest- 
ing about the seizure of cotton, copper and rub- 
ber in ships owned by American merchants and 
destined for one of the belligerent powers in 
Europe. It is standing strongly for the property 
right of the man who wishes to sell his goods to 
foreigners engaged in war. It at one time urged 
passage of a law to let it purchase the ships of 
one of the powers engaged in war, which ships 
had been interned in our waters; a purchase 
which would have been to the pecuniary advan- 
tage of certain banking and business firms, and 
to the pecuniary advantage of the power in ques- 
tion, but which might very well have embroiled 
us with the nations now at war with this power ; 
so that the proposed law would have been very 

Yet while thus endeavoring to serve, some- 
times properly and sometimes improperly, the in- 
terests of the business men which have been hurt 
by this war, the Administration pays not the 



smallest attention to the cases of the correspond- 
ing business men certainly no less deserving 
who have suffered so -terribly in Mexico; and 
it pays no attention whatever to the cases of 
American citizens of humble position and small 
means, men, women and children, who have lost 
life or limb, or all their few worldly goods, dur- 
ing the past two years on the Mexican border and 
within Mexico itself. 

The El Paso Morning Times of December 26, 
1914, a Democratic paper supporting President 
Wilson, stated that in the firing by Mexican sol- 
diers across the border "fully fifty persons, in- 
cluding American soldiers," were wounded. A 
former district-attorney of New Mexico writes 
me that the exact number was fifty-seven, some 
of whom were killed, and that the men shot in- 
cluded American soldiers walking their beats as 
sentries. This information was obtained from 
the coroner at Naco. From the same source I 
am informed that before President Wilson came 
into power, eighteen American citizens were 
killed and wounded in like manner at El Paso. 

Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of the 
whole Naco affair is that at that point there is 
an open port of entry. The arms and ammuni- 
tion used to kill American women and children, 
and American soldiers, were openly purchased in 
the United States and openly delivered through 



a port of entry to the warring factions in Mex- 
ico. An American army officer whose name, of 
course, I cannot give, who has been serving along 
the Mexican border, informs me that, among the 
enlisted men, man after man, when his enlist- 
ment ran out, refused to re-enlist because the 
orders of the Administration were that when 
fired at, on American soil, by Mexicans, he was 
not to return the fire. I speak of what I know 
personally when I say that this action by the Ad- 
ministration has not only deeply damaged us in 
the eyes of the Mexican people, but is a frightful 
source of demoralization among the American 
troops. It is literally incomprehensible to me 
that any American who knows the truth can be 
willing to tolerate such a condition of affairs. 

Surely our people should ponder these facts. 
Here are American private citizens, men, women 
and children, and American soldiers, all on 
American soil, scores of whom have been killed 
or wounded by bullets shot across the line. Some 
of the killing has been done through sheer care- 
lessness and contemptuous indifference for our 
rights;. some has been done maliciously and of 
purpose; and yet President Wilson's Adminis- 
tration has failed to take any action. The cul- 
mination came in the month of January of the 
present year 1916, when sixteen Americans were 
taken from a train in the state of Chihuahua and 



murdered premeditatedly and in cold blood. 
Had Mr. Wilson had in him one faint spark of 
the courage of Andrew Jackson no Mexican 
would have dared even think of such action. 
The murder of these Americans was the direct 
result of President Wilson's recognition of Car- 
ranza's government for otherwise they would not 
have been in Mexico, and their murderers felt 
they could act with impunity because for three 
years President Wilson had shown again and 
again that American citizens could be murdered, 
and the American flag outraged, without hin- 
drance from him. The record of the preceding 
Administration as regards Mexico was not a 
pleasant object of contemplation for Americans 
brought up to honor the flag; but the present 
Administration has made Americans in or near 
Mexico feel that they have no flag to honor. 

Be it remembered also that there was not the 
slightest difficulty in stopping the particular kind 
of flagrant outrage that occurred along the bor- 
der. There were difficulties connected with other 
features of possible policy in Mexico, but there 
never has been the slightest difficulty as regards 
this particular matter. At any moment since, 
some five years ago, the revolution began, this 
type of outrage could have been stopped within 
twenty- four hours. It can be stopped over night. 
All that is necessary is to notify the Mexican au- 



thorities that if there is any repetition of such 
action at any point, the American troops will 
promptly be sent over to the locality where the 
outrage occurs and will drive all the contestants 
to beyond extreme rifle range of the border, and 
will exact immediate punishment for any man or 
party violating the measures which the American 
officer in charge deems it necessary to take to 
protect our peaceable citizens within our own 
borders. It is literally incomprehensible that or- 
ders such as this should not have been issued 
years ago. 

I speak of the cases of this type because they 
are so flagrant; because there can be no discus- 
sion about them and no defence of them which 
can puzzle any man of reasonable intelligence. 
But the wrongs thus committed constitute only 
the tiniest fraction of the innumerable wrongs 
committed upon Americans and upon foreigners 
of every nationality in the course of the five 
years of anarchy during which Mexico has been 
torn to pieces by various groups of banditti. The 
worst of these banditti have been more or less 
actively helped by the present Administration, 
and during the entire five years, but notably dur- 
ing the last three years, they have all of them 
been permitted to prey with impunity upon the 
persons and the property of Americans and of 
other foreigners in Mexico. 



The Administration should be condemned for 
its policy in Mexico ; but let us be frank with our- 
selves, we Americans, and say the condemnation 
should be visited upon us as a nation, for we have 
had the amplest knowledge of all that has hap- 
pened. It has been put before us in detail offi- 
cially. Yet we have declined to make our indig- 
nation felt by President Wilson, and by Mr. 
Bryan (when Mr. Bryan was in office). Messrs. 
Wilson and Bryan not merely sat supine, but 
actually encouraged the Mexican leaders who 
were responsible for the murder of American 
men and the outraging of American women. 
Since Mr. Bryan left office, President Wilson has 
continued the policy unchanged, and his is the 
sole responsibility for the innumerable murders 
and outrages that have since occurred; murders 
and outrages committed by Carranzistas and 
Villistas alike. 

I wish that every American citizen would read 
the speech of Senator Albert B. Fall, of New 
Mexico, delivered in the Senate of the United 
States on March 9, 1914. Not only have Senator 
Fall's statements been left unanswered, but no 
adequate attempt has even been made to answer 
them. One or two Democratic Senators have 
striven to answer similar statements by the as- 
sertion that things as bad were permitted under 
the Administration of President Taft. But Sen- 



ator Fall's speech was open to no such rejoinder, 
for he impartially cited outrages committed prior 
to the advent and subsequent to the advent of the 
present Administration to power. 

The Senate partially performed its duty. On 
April 20, 1913, it sent to the President a formally 
worded request for information as to the number 
of Americans killed in Mexico, the number driven 
out of that country and as to what steps had been 
taken to obtain justice. No answer whatever 
was made to this request, and it was repeated in 
the following July. Then the President an- 
swered, declining to give the information on the 
ground that it was not compatible with the pub- 
lic interest. If the President had then had a well- 
thought-out policy which he intended forthwith 
to apply for remedying the conditions of affairs, 
such an answer might have been proper. But, as 
a matter of fact, events have shown that he had 
no policy whatever, save in so far as vacillating 
inability to do anything positive may be called a 
policy. Two years and a half have passed since 
this answer was returned to the Senate ; murder 
and spoliation have continued unchecked; and 
still not one action has been taken by the present 
Administration to right the fearful wrongs 
that have been committed, and still the public 
has never been shown the material in possession 
of the State Department. 



The following statements are contained in Sen- 
ator Fall's speech. They form but a small pro- 
portion of the cases that have been brought to 
my own attention. But they are officially stated 
by Senator Fall. President Wilson and Secre- 
tary Bryan had it in their power, when these 
statements were made over two years ago, at once 
to find out whether or not they were well founded. 
It was their duty immediately to investigate every 
case thus specifically mentioned by Senator Fall 
and either to take action or to furnish to the Sen- 
ate and the people refutation of the .charges. 
They did nothing whatsoever. They dared not 
do anything whatsoever. 

Senator Fall recites extracts from the report 
of W. W. Suit, the chief of the Order of Railway 
Conductors in the republic of Mexico; the state- 
ment of Conductor T. J. O'Fallon ; the affidavits 
of Conductor J. S. McCranie and Engineer J. D. 
Kennedy, of August 3, 1913; all reciting in de- 
tail the outrages committed in 1911, which re- 
sulted in 500 American railroad men being driven 
from Mexico. The chief of the Order of Rail- 
way Conductors remarks very pertinently, 
"Every American who has been in touch with the 
situation and every citizen of other civilized coun- 
tries sees the necessity of adding the Big Stick 
to the Monroe Doctrine," which is merely a pic- 
turesquely idiomatic way of stating the common- 



sense truth that unless resolute purpose and po- 
tential force are put back of every such doctrine 
or declaration of foreign policy, our enunciation 
of the doctrine or declaration excites mere de- 

These particular infamies complained of here, 
like not a few to which Senator Fall calls atten- 
tion, were committed prior to Mr. Wilson's com- 
ing to power; but Mr. Wilson has never sought 
redress for them or for the outrages committed 
since he has been in power. Senator Fall, for in- 
stance, asks, "What has been done to investigate 
the death of Mrs. Anderson, which occurred in 
Chihuahua on June 22, 1911? Not under this 
Administration. This is no partisan question 
and I think I will be acquitted of any attempt to 
take any possible partisan or political advantage 
in what I shall say as to the last Administration 
and this Administration; but I should like to 
know whether there has been any attempt what- 
soever made to investigate the case to which I 
have just referred." 

He then recites the facts. Mrs. Anderson was 
a poor woman, living with her little daughter of 
thirteen and her little boy of seven in their house. 
The soldiers of Madero's army entered the house 
and demanded that she should cook for them. 
She was shot, fell to the ground, compelled to rise 
from the ground and continue to cook, although 



bleeding to death ; and at the same time her little 
daughter, thirteen years old, was outraged in her 
presence. The boy of a neighbor, running to 
their assistance, was shot at the door of the house 
and killed. The American colonists, not being at 
that time as intimidated as they have since been, 
procured the arrest of the men charged with this 
crime. They were convicted, were sent for six 
months to jail, and then were turned loose upon 
the community. The woman died. 

A little American girl of twelve, Mabel Rich- 
ardson, was assailed seventeen miles from where 
this first outrage occurred. Her assailants were 
never punished; and Senator Fall in his speech 
recited the fact that not one word, not one line of 
protest ever proceeded from our Government in 
the matter, although these were among the cases 
to which he referred in his speech in the Senate 
on July 22, 1912. 

James W. Harvey was killed in the state of 
Chihuahua in May, 1912. 

William Adams, a citizen of Senator Fall's 
own state, was murdered at about the same time, 
and not an effort was made by the Government 
to punish the perpetrator of the outrage. 

In the case of A. J. Fountain, who was killed, 
the Government did act, and its action was worse 
than inaction. It notified the man responsible 
for the murder that American citizens must not 



be killed. This man, named Salazar, serving un- 
der Madero, disregarded the notice sent him, 
killed another American, and when Senator Fall 
made his speech he had fled from the Huertistas 
and was living under the protection of our Gov- 
ernment at El Paso. Says Senator Fall: "He 
is eating three square meals a day on this side 
of the river at Fort Bliss, near El Paso, Texas, 
protected by American soldiers. Meals are be- 
ing provided and paid for by the taxpayers of 
this Government for something over four thou- 
sand of the Mexicans who came across the river." 

Joshua Stevens was killed near Colonia Pa- 
checo, Mexico, on August 25, 1912, and his two 
little daughters assaulted. The case was brought 
to the attention of the State Department, but no 
protest was made. 

Johnny Brooks was killed at Colonia, Chihua- 
hua, in May, 1913. He, however, was a former 
Texas Ranger and, after being mortally wounded 
by five assailants, he killed their leader, a Mexi- 
can lieutenant, before he himself died. This man 
had been originally in the employ of Senator Fall 
himself. His life was taken without the slightest 
provocation, and nothing was ever done by our 
Government to demand reparation. 

On July 26, 1913, near Tampico, Matthew 
Gourd, from the State of Iowa, and his daughter 
and niece were attacked by Mexicans. Gourd 



was tied to a tree and his daughter and niece out- 
raged in his presence. Apparently the only ac- 
tion taken by President Wilson's Administration 
was to send word to the American Consul at 
Tampico that a Red Cross ship would be sent 
down there for a short while and that all Ameri- 
cans should be notified that if they desired they 
could go on board it and leave Mexico ! 

On June 18, 1913, Rogers Palmer, an English 
citizen, was killed, and Carl von Brandts and L. 
W. Elder, American citizens, were wounded in 
Tampico, while endeavoring to defend Ameri- 
can women from the attack of certain of Villa's 

About the same time H. W. Stepp, an Ameri- 
can, was shot because of his refusal to pay five 
hundred pesos ransom. 

Edmund Hayes and Robert Thomas were 
killed by Santa Caravo. Senator Fall personally 
called the attention of President Wilson and Sec- 
retary Bryan to the fact that the murderer was 
walking the streets of Juarez, five minutes' ride 
from El Paso. The Department demanded his 
arrest and punishment. He was arrested, but 
nothing more has been heard of the case; and 
Senator Fall could get no answer to his requests 
to know what the Government had done to back 
up its threats and to enforce the punishment of 
this man, a red-handed murderer of two men, 



among the best-known American pioneers in 

Benjamin Griffin, a ranchman, was murdered 
July 5, 1913. No reparation has been obtained. 

John H. Williams, a mining engineer; Boris 
Gadow, a consulting engineer, and U. G. Wolf, 
a mining engineer, were all shot, but nothing 
was done about it. I quote verbatim from what 
Senator Fall says of the next case he mentions : 
"Frank Ward was shot in the back by bandits 
near Yago, Tepic Territory, April 9, 1913. I 
endeavored to obtain information, not by asking 
the State Department, but from other sources, as 
I have been compelled to obtain information in 
other cases. For a long while it was impossible 
for me to get the facts of the occurrence result- 
ing in Ward's killing, because when American 
women are attacked and outraged, they them- 
selves and their friends attempt to keep their 
names out of the press and avoid in every way 
possible publicity in matters of that kind. But I 
can say to you now, Mr. President, that an affi- 
davit is on file in the American Embassy in the 
City of Mexico from Mrs. Ward herself stating 
that when her husband was shot, and writhing in 
his wounds on the floor, she was outraged by 
Mexican bandit's, who then killed him. The affi- 
davit is on file. Has any attempt been made to 
secure the punishment of those guilty of this 



crime?" No; President Wilson took no action 

Senator Fall went on to enumerate scores of 
similar murders and outrages. It would be use- 
less to recapitulate them. I call attention only to 
one or two cases. A United States Customs In- 
spector, John S. H. Howard, was assassinated 
near Eagle Pass, Texas. The United States 
Government did nothing, but in this particular 
case the State of Texas caught one of the assas- 
sins and dealt with him, says the Senator, "as 
Texas is prepared to deal, I am glad to say, with 
other assassins." 

L. Bushnell, a mounted policeman, was killed 
in Naco, Arizona, by a bullet from over the line, 
March 24, 1913. R. H. Ferguson, a member of 
the troop F, Third United States Cavalry, was 
killed by a bullet fired over the border in similar 

Senator Fall states that it is probable that not 
as many Americans have been killed during the 
last two years as during the preceding three 
years, because the Americans have been driven 
out of Mexico by herds. On July 28, 1913, he 
notified the Secretary of State, Mr. Bryan, that 
he had in his possession a list of 284 men, 301 
women and 1,266 children, all of them Americans, 
who had been driven out of Mexico for no fault 
of their own. They were people of small means; 



their little cottages had been burned to the ground 
in most cases. Secretary of State Bryan ac- 
knowledged the receipt of the letter and did noth- 
ing whatever about it. President Wilson sup- 
ported Mr. Bryan in the matter. 

Senator Fall gave minutely and in detail case 
after case of unspeakable outrages. He showed 
that these cases were called specifically to the at- 
tention of the Administration and that the Ad- 
ministration deliberately declined to act on be- 
half of the unfortunate beings who had suffered 
such dreadful wrong. He recited, what has been 
told to me personally by other men who have seen 
Mr. Bryan, that Mr. Bryan declined to act in be- 
half of Americans who had lost their property, on 
the ground that he was not interested in "pro- 
tecting American dollars." But the enormous 
majority of the men, women and children who 
have suffered in Mexico belong to the class of 
those persons of small means who support them- 
selves by their own work. Undoubtedly the de- 
struction of property has fallen upon the wealthy 
no less than upon the humble ; but the American 
women who have been outraged, the American 
men who have been killed and the American chil- 
dren who have been deprived of their parents or 
of their homes, in the immense majority of cases, 
belong to the class whose means are small. 

President Wilson and Secretary Bryan en- 


deavored to "protect the dollars" of wealthy for- 
eign corporations by purchasing from or through 
them the German ships interned in our ports, and 
they endeavored to "protect the dollars" of 
wealthy property owners who desired to make 
fortunes through the sale of contraband, but they 
made no effective protest, they took no action 
whatever, as regards the railway conductors, the 
brakemen, the small farmers and ranchmen, the 
mining engineers, our fellow citizens peacefully 
plying their trades in Mexico, whose property 
was taken from them, who themselves were some- 
times killed and whose wives and daughters, 
American women, American girls, sometimes 
suffered outrages worse than death. 

It is eminently right to "protect American dol- 
lars," so long as this can be done without inter- 
fering with the just rights of others. It is even 
more necessary to protect the persons and lives 
of American men and women. But what shall 
we say of the governmental representatives who 
do neither, and seek to cover their failure by 
prattle about despising "dollars"? Especially 
when on the high seas they treat "dollars" as of 
more importance than the lives of women and 
children ? 

Let me repeat that I quote Senator Fall only 
because he has spoken as a Senator, so that his 
remarks are contained in an official document, 



which should be circulated broadcast throughout 
the United States. I relate a few of the specific 
cases he quotes merely as instances, to show that 
our public officials have had multitudes of such 
cases specifically called to their attention. Any 
number of similar statements to those of Senator 
Fall have been made to me by private individuals. 
American after American has told me that our 
fellow-countrymen are eagerly seeking to obtain 
English or German citizenship, and American 
heads of corporations in Mexico have told me that 
they are employing only Germans or Englishmen, 
because, though Englishmen and Germans are 
not treated well in Mexico, they are infinitely bet- 
ter treated than Americans. 

There is no government in the world for which 
the Mexican people now feel the profound con- 
tempt that they feel for the United States Gov- 
ernment ; and we owe this contempt to the way in 
which our governmental authorities have behaved 
during the last five years, but especially during 
the last three years. Well-meaning people praise 
President Wilson for having preserved "peace" 
with Mexico, and avoided the "hostility" of Mex- 
ico. As a matter of fact his action has steadily 
increased Mexican hostility, has not prevented 
the futile and infamous little "war" in which we 
first took and then abandoned Vera Cruz, and 
has been responsible for death, outrage and suf- 



fering which have befallen hundreds of Ameri- 
cans and hundreds of thousands of Mexicans 
during the carnival of crime and bloodshed with 
which this "peace" has prevented interference. 

Senator Fall made it evident in his speech that 
he held no brief for either of the contending 
Mexican factions. He described Huerta in lan- 
guage of just severity, but he showed, what every 
man in his senses knows, that Villa has been a 
bandit and murderer by profession, and a mur- 
derer, robber and outrager of women since he 
has become a general in the revolution. Car- 
ranza and his party have stood precisely on the 
same level of bandit-murder. There was no rea- 
son whatever for any American to uphold Huer- 
ta ; but to antagonize him on moral grounds, and 
then to endeavor to replace him by a polyga- 
mous bandit, was not compatible with any intelli- 
gent system of international ethics. Nor did any 
betterment follow from dropping this bandit, and 
putting the power of the United States Govern- 
ment behind another bandit. It may be en- 
tirely proper to take the view that we have no 
concern with the morality of any chief who is for 
the time being the ruler of Mexico. But to do as 
President Wilson has done and actively take sides 
against Huerta and for Villa, condemning the 
former for misdeeds, and ignoring the far worse 
misdeeds of the latter, and then to abandon Villa 



and support against him Carranza, who was re- 
sponsible for exactly the same kind of hideous 
outrages against Americans, and insults to the 
American flag, is an affront to all who believe in 
straightforward sincerity in American public 

Senator Fall gives in detail the circumstances 
of a few of Villa's crimes, some of them so shock- 
ing that any decent man's blood boils as he reads 
them. Villa's efficiency has unquestionably been 
great, but it has been efficiency of the type which 
in the reign of King Bomba gave certain Sicilian 
and Calabrian bandit chiefs international prom- 
inence. The statements of Senator Fall have 
never been successfully questioned. Villa can, 
of course, be defended, but only in the sense that 
it is possible to defend Geronimo or some other 
Apache chief of Geronimo's type; to defend Villa 
as representing freedom and justice and democ- 
racy in the sense that the words are used in 
speaking of civilized nations is literally like de- 
fending an old-time Apache chief on the same 
grounds. The sincerity of such a defence can 
escape question only if the defender is admitted 
to be entirely ignorant of all concerning which 
he speaks. 

It is not possible to give all the facts in full. 
For this the responsibility lies entirely with the 
President, for he has consistently carried out a 



policy of secrecy as regards the outrages on our 
citizens in Mexico. He has persistently refused 
to let the facts be known. He has worked in the 
darkness and behind cover. He has followed the 
policy of preventing all publicity. He has con- 
cealed the truth and furtively evaded telling the 
truth. But nevertheless we do know the facts 
in a very large number of cases. From the in- 
formation available, it appears that over two 
hundred American lives have been lost in Mex- 
ico; that as regards none of them has redress 
been secured, and that as regards most of them 
it has not even been demanded. 

Apparently many hundreds of millions of dol- 
lars of American capital was invested in Mexico, 
and of this almost all is gone. As before stated, 
when remonstrated with on this subject, Mr. 
Bryan, speaking for President Wilson, repeat- 
edly informed callers that he was not "interested 
in American dollars"; that Americans who in- 
vested in property in foreign countries could not 
look to this Government to protect them. Yet at 
that very time another member of the Cabinet 
who sat at the same council board with Mr. 
Bryan was making an earnest appeal that Ameri- 
cans should invest their property "dollars" in 
enterprises in South America; and at that very 
time Mr. Bryan, in accordance with the orders of 
Mr. Wilson, was making protests about the in- 



terference with American property "dollars" 
on the high seas. 

Of course what Messrs. Wilson and Bryan 
say about "American dollars" is a mere rhetor- 
ical flourish in any event. If we have no right 
under any circumstances to jeopardize life to pro- 
tect property in international matters, then we 
have no right to jeopardize it to protect property 
in municipal matters. If the Wilson-Bryan doc- 
trine is true, then no policeman should arrest any 
violent offender for a crime less than murder or 
rape, and no householder should defend himself 
against a burglar or highwayman, for in such 
case he is undoubtedly jeopardizing the life either 
of his assailant or himself in order to "protect 

However, President Wilson's practice is a little 
worse even than his theory. His theory has been 
that he would not protect American property in 
Mexico. His practice has been that he would not 
protect American men from murder and Ameri- 
can women from rape in Mexico. And at the 
same time President Wilson, in striving to 
secure and protect certain kinds of prop- 
erty that is, in dealing with matters of contra- 
band and of the purchase of the interned ships 
of one of the powers now at war has been fol- 
lowing in feeble and irresolute fashion a policy 
which it is quite conceivable would, if successful, 



let us drift into war in peculiarly ignoble fashion. 

The Hague conventions bound us to protest 
against the dreadful wrong done to the men, 
women and children of Belgium. President Wil- 
son declined to make any protest on behalf of 
human life, lest to do so might embroil us with 
some powerful outside nation; but he protests 
heartily against any interference with our selling 
copper to be used in the warlike operations 
against these same Belgians; thereby showing 
that in practice he puts property rights above 
those highest of human rights which concern the 
lives of the helpless. 

A year ago President Wilson spoke on the 
subject of Mexico in a speech at Indianapo- 
lis. At the beginning of his speech he said, "I 
got very tired staying in Washington and saying 
sweet things. I wanted to come out and get in 
touch with you once more and say what I really 
thought." Disregarding the implication as to 
his own past sincerity contained in this statement, 
we have a right to take the speech as expressing 
his deliberate conviction and purpose. He said 
that he possessed "a reckless enthusiasm for hu- 
man liberty," and then spoke of his own policy 
of "watchful waiting in Mexico." Apparently, 
in his mind "watchful waiting" is a species of 
"reckless enthusiasm." He asserted that the peo- 
ple of Mexico have a right to do anything they 



please about their business, saying, "It is none 
of my business; it is none of your business how 
long they take in determining it. It is none of 
my business and it is none of yours how they go 
about the business. Haven't the European na- 
tions taken as long as they wanted and spilled as 
much blood as they pleased in settling their af- 
fairs ? Shall we deny that to Mexico because she 
is weak?" 

This is the kind of language that can be used 
about Mexico with sincerity only if it is also to 
be applied to Dahomey and to outrages like those 
of the French Commune. It cannot in the long 
run be accepted by any great state which is both 
strong and civilized nor by any statesman with 
a serious purpose to better mankind. In point 
of public morality it is fundamentally as evil 
a declaration as has ever been put forth by an 
American President in treating of foreign af- 
fairs ; and there is to it the added touch of ineffi- 

Moreover, President Wilson's words, bad 
though they are, have not been borne out by his 
deeds. He has actively interfered in Mexico on 
behalf of some of those spillers of blood whose 
right to "spill" blood he exuberantly champions. 
He has not interfered to punish the bandits and 
murderers who have killed American men and 
outraged American women. He has not in- 



terfered to protect the honor and the interest 
of the United States. He has not interfered 
to protect the lives and the property of our citi- 
zens or of the citizens of any other country. But 
he has interfered to help put into power the very 
worst among the leaders of the various murder- 
ous and thieving groups and factions, and then 
to replace him with the next worst. 

President Wilson refused to run the risk of 
shedding the blood of any American soldiers to 
protect American citizens and put a stop to an- 
archy and murder and prevent further blood- 
spilling or to try to bring peace to the distracted 
land of Mexico. He refused to run the risk of 
shedding the blood of any American soldier in 
order to prevent the killing of American soldiers 
and American private citizens on our own terri- 
tory by Mexicans who shot at or toward them 
from the other side of the border line. The rape 
of women, the murder of men and the cruel 
treatment of little children left his tepid soul 
unstirred. Insult to the American flag, nameless 
infamies on American women, caused him not 
one single pulse of emotion. But he wantonly 
and without the smallest excuse and without the 
smallest benefit to this country shed the blood of 
several scores of American soldiers and sailors in 
order to help put one blood-stained bandit in the 
place of another blood-stained bandit. And he 



now, without any reason of morality or sound 
public policy, is helping a third blood-stained 
bandit against his former ally and protege, the 
second bandit. 

Murder and torture; rape and robbery; the 
death of women by outrage and children by star- 
vation; the shooting of men by the thousand in 
cold blood Mr. Wilson takes note of these facts 
only to defend the right of vicious and disorderly 
Mexicans to "spill" as much as they please of the 
blood of their peaceful fellow-citizens and of 
law-abiding foreigners. But when the chance 
came for him to use the Army and Navy of the 
United States in favor of the worst offender 
among all the rival bandit chiefs, he eagerly 
clutched at it. 

Senator Lodge, in his speech of January 6, 
1915, discussed at length what President Wilson 
has done in this matter, and no successful at- 
tempt has been made or can be made to answer 
what he then said. His speech, together with the 
speech of Senator Fall and the speech of Senator 
Borah, should be circulated among all honest 
citizens who wish to know what the facts really 

The country should clearly understand the aw- 
ful misery that has been brought upon Mexico 
by President Wilson's policy. It is extraordi- 
nary that we do not realize that, thanks to our 


own selfishness and heedlessness, thanks to the 
dishonorable timidity of the Administration, 
the conditions of life in Mexico are worse at this 
moment than the conditions of life in the regions 
over which the contending armies in Europe have 
fought. In 1914 we sent Christmas ships abroad 
to the war-stricken countries of Europe. This 
was well ; but why did we neglect Mexico, where 
our own responsibility is so heavy? 

At that very time a pathetic appeal had been 
issued by a company of Mexicans near the inter- 
national boundary line addressed "To the Ameri- 
can People and their Exalted Authorities." It 
was a plea for work for the men and bread for 
the women and children. They asked for work, 
for justice, for bread. Conditions like those 
which in Europe have shocked the civilized world 
have existed here right against our own borders, 
for four years, unconsidered by us. 

As the wife of one of our consuls-general has 
said: "Mexico is peopled with widows and or- 
phans, and famine is in the land. One sees it 
daily, in emaciated forms, shrunken cheeks, 
tightly drawn skin and burning eyes. It is in the 
faces of women, old men and little children. 
Many have died on American soil during the 
past year, ostensibly from obscure disease, but 
actually from starvation, and there are hundreds 
of children who have never had sufficient food 



in their pitiful little lives. That is the heart- 
breaking tragedy in it all the unsmiling little 
children who sit silently by the doors of the huts 
through the long hours of long days. The sound 
of laughter and of playing children has been 
stilled in Mexico. From these people comes a 
cry of bread for the starving. The United States 
has claimed the exclusive right to intervene in 
Mexican affairs. Will we demand the right and 
repudiate the obligation?" 

This is the state of affairs to which Mexico has 
been brought by the practical application of Mr. 
Bryan's doctrine as to not caring for "American 
dollars" (it is American dollars that buy food 
for the starving, Mr. Bryan!) and of President 
Wilson's doctrine that we must not interfere or 
let any one else interfere to stop "spilling blood" 
in Mexico. President Wilson's position meets 
the enthusiastic approval of the bandits who spill 
the blood. It meets and it merits the enthusi- 
astic support of the blood-smeared leaders to 
whom his inaction has given the chance to mur- 
der men and outrage women and to let little chil- 
dren starve. 

But the laughter of little children has been 
stilled in Mexico. It has been stilled because 
President Wilson in his handling of the Mexican 
problem, as in his handling of every other branch 
of our foreign affairs, has placed this country in 



the position of shirking its plain duty, of seeking 
its own ignoble ease beyond everything else, and 
of declining to protect its own citizens or to fulfill 
its international obligations or to interfere for 
the weak and helpless, when rapine and murder 
stalk in insolent mastery over the land. 

Our course as regards Mexico has been a 
terrible thing for Mexico. It has been a shame- 
ful thing for the United States. But if this 
policy is permanently continued, there will be 
yet further shame in store for the United 
States. Sooner or later the war in Europe will 
come to an end; and then the great armed na- 
tions, after a more or less brief interval, will cer- 
tainly turn their attention to us and to Mexico. 
We cannot forbid interference with Mexico in 
the name of the Monroe Doctrine and yet fail to 
fulfill the obligation imposed on us by common 
humanity if we maintain that doctrine. 

Spaniards, Germans, Englishmen, Italians, 
Frenchmen, have been wronged in Mexico, only 
less than our own citizens have been wronged 
only less than decent and well-behaved Mexicans 
have been wronged by the inhuman bandits to 
whom our Government has furnished arms and 
aid for the perpetration of their crimes. Presi- 
dent Wilson in his messages has confusedly ad- 
vocated, first that we stay unprepared and help- 
less in the face of military nations, and next that 



we go into a policy of half-way preparation; and 
in actual fact he has not made even the smallest 
advance towards preparedness. He also advo- 
cates that in Mexico we pursue the policy of let- 
ting the violent and disorderly elements of the 
population slowly destroy all the leading men, 
all the reputable people, and bring destruction by 
fire and steel, by disease and famine, on the hum- 
ble men and women and little children, and also 
on the strangers within their gates. 

The self-respecting and powerful nations of 
the world will not permanently permit such a 
course of action. We will not permanently be 
permitted to render ourselves impotent in the 
face of possible aggression and at the same time 
try to forbid other nations from righting wrongs 
which we are too weak, too timid or too short- 
sighted ourselves to right. In the end foreign na- 
tions will assuredly take issue with the Wilson- 
Bryan theory, which is that America can adopt as 
her permanent policy the shirking of national 
duty by this country, combined with a protest 
against any other country doing the duty which 
we have shirked. Either we shall have to abandon 
the Monroe Doctrine and let other nations restore 
order in Mexico, and then deprive us of any right 
to speak in behalf of any people of the Western 
Hemisphere, or else we must in good faith our- 
selves undertake the task and bring peace and 



order and prosperity to Mexico, as by our wise 
intervention it was brought to Cuba. 

In the last five years the suffering in Mexico 
has in the aggregate far surpassed the suffering 
in Belgium during the last eighteen months. 
Dark deeds have been done in Belgium, but they 
have not been as dark as the fiendish atrocities 
perpetrated in Mexico. For these Mexican 
atrocities the United States Government must 
shoulder a very heavy load of responsibility, 
thanks chiefly to President Wilson's Administra- 

The other day a friend of mine, a German dip- 
lomat, wrote to me taking exception to my con- 
demnation of Germany because of its acts to- 
ward Belgium, and his letter ran partly as fol- 
lows : "You do not refer to the present Mexican 
question, at which I am not astonished. Don't 
you believe it would have been rather queer to 
get a protest about Belgium from a government 
which had created the most extraordinary breach 
of international-law-impossibilities (please ex- 
cuse this queer expression) by at first not rec- 
ognizing a President of a neighboring country, 
with whom it seemed on good terms, then allow- 
ing arms to be sent to the revolutionaries in that 
country, not to recognize them as belligerents 
though ; then to forbid this export of arms, then 
to allow it again; to occupy by force a port, to 



leave it again, and to wind up by leaving the 
country in question which was supposed to 
benefit by all this, at least that was what we out- 
siders were told with, I think, five Presidents 
fighting one another and ruining the country 
completely. I think the results for Mexico have 
been worse than our invasion of Belgium." 

There was no adequate answer that I could 
make to my German 'friend; and in the wrongs 
done to Belgium by Germany, Germany has at 
least shown strength and fearlessness and effi- 
ciency, whereas the course of the Administration 
in regard to Mexico has branded our country 
with the brand of feebleness, timidity and vacil- 
lation. A weakling who fears to stand up man- 
fully for the right may work as much mischief 
as any strong-armed wrongdoer. For two years 
President Wilson has decreed that Mexican 
malefactors shall be allowed at will to spill the 
blood of the innocent, and because of this atti- 
tude of President Wilson, American men have 
been wantonly murdered and American women 
outraged, while the famine-stricken women of 
Mexico mourn, and among their starving chil- 
dren there is no laughter. 




THE following two letters show an attitude 
on the part of the National Administration 
which challenges the careful consideration of 
every American. The letters, which were sent 
me by Mr. John M. Parker, of New Orleans, 
explain themselves: 

Hon. William Jennings Bryan, Secretary of 

State, Washington, D. C. 
Your Excellency: 

My father, P. A. Lelong, was a native of 
France and came to New Orleans when he was 
about twenty years of age; lived here about forty 
years. He died here about two years ago, but 
about five years before his death took out natu- 
ralization papers. 

I was born in New Orleans, June 18, 1880. I 
have never been out of the United States and 
have regularly voted as an American citizen since 
I reached the age of twenty-one years, and if 



war had ever occurred between France and the 
United States, I most certainly would have 
fought for the United States. I have held the 
office of Township Commissioner in Henderson 
County, North Carolina ; have held several court 
appointments, both Federal and State, and am a 
member of the State and Federal bar, and have 
considered myself as much an American citizen 
as President Wilson or any of the members of 
the Cabinet. 

I wish to visit France on business in the near 
future, and am informed by Mr. Ferrand and the 
French Consul here that if I go to France I could 
be either impressed into the French service or 
punished for not having reported for military 
duty, and also for having served in the State 
Militia of Louisiana without permission from 
the French Government. 

I contend that if the French Government had 
any right to claim me as a citizen under their 
laws, in times of peace they should have called 
on me to serve my three years in their military 

Wishing to know whether my constitutional 
privileges as an American citizen follow me 
wherever I go, with its constitutional guarantees, 
or whether the United States Government will 
allow the French Government to act in the man- 
ner as stated by Mr. Ferrand, the French Consul, 



I respectfully request an answer at as early a 
date as possible. 

Respectfully yours, 
(Signed) P. A. LI,ONG, JR. 

To this the following answer was returned: 


WASHINGTON, April 2, 1915. 
Mr. P. A. Lelong, Junior, 832 Union Street, 

New Orleans, Louisiana. 

The Department has received your letter of 
March 27, 1915, stating that you expect to go to 
France on business in the near future and in- 
quiring whether you would be molested by the 
French military authorities. You say that you 
were born in New Orleans, June 18, 1880, and 
that your father, a native of France, resided in 
this country about forty years and obtained 
naturalization as a citizen of the United States 
shortly before his death, which occurred about 
two years ago. 

Under the provision of the Fourteenth Amend- 
ment to.the Constitution, all persons born in the 
United States and subject to the jurisdiction 
thereof are citizens of the United States. Sec- 
tion one, Article VII of the French Civil Code, 
states that the following are Frenchmen : "Every 



person born of a Frenchman in France or 

It thus appears that you were born with a dual 
nationality, and the Department cannot there- 
fore give you any assurance that you would not 
be held liable for the performance of military 
service in France should you voluntarily place 
yourself within French jurisdiction. 
I am, sir, 

Your obedient servant, 

For the Secretary of State, 


One effect of this decision, on an American 
citizen who actually went abroad, reached me in 
a letter I received, dated November 6th, 1915, 
from Camp House, Short Hills, New Jersey. 
The writer is an Italian woman, Elizabeth Par- 
ness. Her husband, Vito Parness, is not only a 
naturalized citizen, but has served in the Elev- 
enth Cavalry, United States Army, for three 
years, being discharged a non-commissioned of- 
ficer. In November, 1914, he went to Italy to see 
his old father and mother and has not been al- 
lowed to return. His wife writes me that she is 
in dire poverty, having no means of support; 
that the State Department has been notified, but 
that nothing has been done. But it is, perhaps, 



natural that when native-born Americans are 
murdered and their wives raped with impunity 
in Mexico, naturalized Americans, even although 
ex-United States soldiers, receive no protection 
in Europe. 

I hold that it is the clear duty of the American 
people immediately to repudiate the doctrine thus 
laid down by the Wilson Administration. Ac- 
cording to this doctrine there are in our coun- 
try very many citizens and, as a matter of 
fact, this ruling would apply to millions of citi- 
zens who are "born with a dual nationality." 
Two or three years ago it was announced that 
Germany had passed a law by which she provided 
for her citizens, who became naturalized in the 
United States or elsewhere, the means of also re- 
taining their German citizenship, so that these 
men would preserve a dual citizenship, what the 
Department of State in this letter of April 2nd 
last calls " a dual nationality/' I hold that it was 
the business of our Government as soon as this 
statement was published to investigate the facts, 
to require would-be citizens to repudiate this law, 
and to notify the German Government that we 
protested against and would refuse to recognize 
its action; that we declined to recognize or ac- 
quiesce in the principle of such a dual citizenship 
or a dual nationality ; that we would hold natural- 
ized citizens to the full performance of the duties 



of American citizenship, which were necessarily 
exclusive of and inconsistent with the profession 
of citizenship in or allegiance to any other na- 
tion, and that in return we would extend the same 
protection to these citizens that is extended to 
native-born citizens. Such action was not taken. 
It is a reproach to us as a nation that it was not 
taken. We should not for a moment tolerate 
the assumption by Germany or by any other 
foreign power that foreign-born citizens of the 
United States can retain any citizenship in or 
allegiance to the country from which they came. 
But the present case is even worse. It seems 
incredible that the Department of State can pro- 
mulgate the doctrine of dual nationality pro- 
mulgated in its letter above quoted. Yet it has 
been asserted and reasserted, both before and 
since Mr. Bryan left office. It is dangerously 
close to treason to the United States to hold 
that men born here of foreign parentage, men 
who have served in the militia in this country, 
who vote and hold office and exercize all the 
other rights of citizenship, and who in good faith 
are and always have been Americans, should, 
nevertheless, be blandly informed by the State 
Department that if they visit the countries in 
which their parents were born they can be seized, 
punished for evasion of military duty, or made 
to serve in the army. 



Let me point out a few of the possible applica- 
tions of the doctrines thus laid down by the De- 
partment of State. If Colonel Goethals went to 
Holland he would be liable to be shipped out for 
military service in Sumatra. If Admirals Oster- 
haus and Schroeder had gone to Germany they 
could have been forced to serve under Admiral 
von Tirpitz in the German navy. If General 
Barry should visit England he could be seized 
and sent to the trenches in France. If my neigh- 
bors Messrs. Peter Dunne and Mark Sullivan, 
and my friends Judge O'Brien and James Con- 
oily and Charles Conolly, went to England they 
could be impressed into the British army for 
service in Flanders or Ireland. If the sons of 
Jacob Riis went to Denmark they could be re- 
tained in the Danish forces. If the son of the 
great war correspondent McGahan, whose 
mother was a Russian lady, went to Russia, he 
could be sent to serve in the Carpathians. Presi- 
dent Andrew Jackson on this theory could have 
been impressed for military service in the English 
army against which he fought at New Orleans, 
if he had ever happened to visit England; and 
President Arthur would have been in the same 

Such incidents seem like the phantasmagoria 
of an unpleasant dream. Until I saw this letter 
of April 2nd last, I had not supposed that it 



would be possible for any human being in our 
country to uphold such a proposition. Yet in 
point of rights, Mr. Lelong stands exactly level 
with the men whom I have thus instanced. 
Surely it ought not to be necessary to say that 
the rights of every citizen in this land are as 
great and as sacred as those of any other citizen. 
The United States cannot with self-respect per- 
mit its organic and fundamental law to be over- 
ridden by the laws of a foreign country. It can- 
not acknowledge any such theory as this of "a 
dual nationality" which, incidentally, is a self- 
evident absurdity. 

Mr. Lelong was born in this country; when 
he became of age he elected to exercise his birth- 
right granted to him by the Constitution of the 
United States; he took an oath to support that 
Constitution, and he has held military office un- 
der its authority, and under the authority of two 
states of the American Union. He is eligible to 
the Presidency of the United States. He is a 
citizen of the United States, standing on an exact 
equality of right with all other citizens, and he is 
entitled to the full protection of the United States 
both in and out of any foreign country, free and 
exempt from any provision of the law of that 
country as to citizenship. There should not be a 
moment's delay in asserting this doctrine, not 
only as regards Mr. Lelong and France, but as 



regards Germany in connection with her law 
providing for a dual citizenship so far as it con- 
cerns immigrants from Germany who become 
citizens of the United States. 

We should assert in the face of all the nations 
of the world, of France and England, of Russia, 
Austria and Germany, the principle that we our- 
selves determine for ourselves the rights of citi- 
zenship of our citizens, that we champion them 
in the full exercise of these rights as against 
any foreign power that interferes with them, and 
that in return we hold them to a full accounta- 
bility for the exercise of these rights in the sole 
interest of the United States as against any 
foreign power which claims any allegiance what- 
soever from them. 




JAPAN is indeed a wonderful land. Nothing 
in history has quite paralleled her rise dur- 
ing the last fifty years. Her progress has been 
remarkable alike in war, in industry, in states- 
manship, in science. Her admirals and generals, 
her statesmen and administrators, have accom- 
plished feats with which only the greatest feats 
of the picked men of corresponding position in 
Europe and the two Americas during the same 
time can be compared and in order to match in 
the aggregate these great men of a single island 
nation, more than one of the countries of the 
Occident must be drawn on. 

Among the Japanese administrators of high 
note is Count Terauchi, and among Japan's many 
feats of consequence is her administration of 
Korea. Count Terauchi is the Governor-Gen- 
eral of Korea Chosen, as the Japanese term it 
and he has just compiled and published at Seoul 
(Keijo) a report on the "Reform and Progress 
in Chosen" for the years 1912-1913. It is in 
English ; and no book of the kind recently issued 



is better worth the study of statesmen and of 
scholars interested in every kind of social re- 
form. Moreover, its study is of capital conse- 
quence from the standpoint of those who recog- 
nize the importance of bringing home to our peo- 
ple the knowledge of the admirable and masterly 
achievements of the Japanese in the difficult task 
of colonial administration. 

In its essence the work that has been done in 
Korea under Count Terauchi is like that done 
under similar conditions by the chief colonial ad- 
ministrators of the United States, England, 
France and Germany. Korea as an independent 
nation could not keep order at home and was 
powerless to strike an effective blow on her own 
behalf when assailed from abroad. She had been 
dominated by Russia, so that all obligations of 
foreign powers to help her keep her independence 
had lapsed long before the outbreak of the Russo- 
Japanese war; and under the circumstances her 
subsequent domination, and, in 1910, her final 
annexation by Japan was inevitable. The 
Japanese have restored and enforced order, 
built roads and railways, carried out great engi- 
neering works, introduced modern sanitation, in- 
troduced a modern school system and doubled the 
commerce and the agricultural output, substan- 
tially as the most advanced nations of Europe 
and America have done under like conditions. 



All of these matters and many others such as 
the administration of justice, the founding of 
industrial and agricultural banks, the establish- 
ment of government experiment farms, the reve- 
nues, the government monopoly in ginseng and 
salt manufacture, the charitable institutions 
are treated in full in the volume before me, and 
in addition to the letter-press there are numerous 
first-rate photographs. 

One of the interesting touches in the book is 
that describing the way tourist parties of Ko- 
reans are formed to visit Japan and study its ad- 
vanced systems of agriculture, industry and edu- 
cation. The visits are generally timed so as to 
see a national or some local industrial exhibition. 
Tourist parties of Korean countrymen often 
visit the capital, Keijo, with a similar educational 
purpose. The Japanese are endeavoring to in- 
troduce their language, culture and industry into 
the country, and are taking very practical steps 
to introduce the Koreans to the high modern 
civilization of the new rulers of the land. 

One of the great works done by the Japanese 
in Korea has been in reforesting the country. 
This has been carried on in the most scientific 
manner a manner, I regret to say, smacking 
more of German efficiency than of any large- 
scale forestry process in our own country. Over 
five million trees have been planted, the best 



European models serving as examples. Arbor 
Day has been instituted, and is celebrated just as 
in various states of the American Union, the 
school children being especially interested. But, 
with their usual wisdom and far-sighted, prac- 
tical good sense, the Japanese officials not only 
adopt anything foreign that may be useful, but 
also develop anything native that can be made 
more useful. The provincial governments have 
devoted much energy to the revival of an ancient 
Korean guild, the Songkei, which had for its 
object the promoting of interest in pine forests. 
All kinds of interesting contrasts between the 
very old and the very new are brought out in- 
cidentally; as, for example, the trouble of the 
health authorities with the Korean "grave geo- 
mancers," and their efforts to substitute the hy- 
gienic practice of cremation for burial. 

An excellent instance of the kind of foresight 
which ought to be imitated in the United States 
is the action taken in protecting whales. Whal- 
ing on the east coast of Korea is very lucrative; 
but the whales have been over-fished; and the 
government has now established a close season, 
has prohibited all whaling outside certain areas, 
has limited the number of vessels that can be 
employed, and has forbidden the capture of 
mother whales accompanied by their young. 

All this of which I speak is only to indicate 


what the volume tells of Japanese administration 
in Korea. To describe it fully, and to comment 
on it with knowledge, would need an expert. I 
am writing as the merest layman. My purpose 
is simply to call attention to the matter. It is to 
be wished that the Japanese society would repub- 
lish the volume and make it generally accessible. 

But the chief lesson it teaches is one which by 
rights our people ought already to know well. 
Japan is as advanced and civilized a power as the 
United States or any power in Europe. She has 
as much to teach us as we have to teach her. 
In true patriotism for there is no such thing as 
true patriotism that does not include eager and 
foresighted desire to make one's country able to 
defend herself against foreign attack Japan is 
far ahead of us. There is no nation in the world 
more worthy of admiration and respect. There 
is no nation in the world with which it is more 
important that the United States should be on 
terms of cordial friendship and absolutely equal 
mutuality of respect. 

Japan's whole sea-front, and her entire home 
maritime interest, bear on the Pacific; and of the 
other great nations of the earth the United 
States has the greatest proportion of her sea- 
front on, and the greatest proportion of her in- 
terest in, the Pacific. But there is not the slight- 
est real or necessary conflict of interests between 



Japan and the United States in the Pacific. 
When compared with each other, the interest 
of Japan is overwhelmingly Asiatic, that of the 
United States overwhelmingly American. Rela- 
tively to each other, one is dominant in Asia, the 
other in North America. Neither has any de- 
sire, nor any excuse for desiring, to acquire ter- 
ritory on the other's continent. With the ex- 
ception of the Philippines, which the present Ad- 
ministration has definitely committed the United 
States to abandon in the near future, the insular 
possessions of each clearly appertain to their re- 
spective continents; Hawaii is almost as much 
American as Formosa is Asiatic. Neither has 
any interest in the Pacific Ocean itself except 
to keep it as a broad highway open to all. Each 
is a good customer of the other. Each has some- 
thing to learn from and something to teach the 
other. Each has every interest in preserving the 
friendship of the other. For either to incur the 
hostility of the other would in the end turn out 
to be a folly, a calamity unrelieved by the slight- 
est benefit. It may almost be said that the far- 
sightedness and intelligence of any citizen of 
either country can largely be measured by the 
friendly respect he feels and shows for the other 
country. Neither territorially, nor in commer- 
cial interest, nor in international rivalry, is there 




any excuse for clashing. The two nations should 
for all time work hand in hand. 

The Japanese statesmen and leaders of thought 
are doing all they can to keep on the best possible 
footing with the United States. Although Ja- 
pan was engaged in war she did everything in 
her power to make the California-Panama Expo- 
sition a success. Her exhibit was of peculiar 
importance, because the exhibits of most of the 
other great powers were greatly interfered with 
by the war. 

Every consideration, permanent and tempo- 
rary, makes the continuance of a good under- 
standing between the two nations of capital 
importance. It is a grave offence against the 
United States for any man, by word or deed, 
to jeopardize this good understanding. To 
do so by the act of a state legislature is even 
graver. Any action by a state legislature 
touching on the rights of foreigners of any 
other nation should be taken with extreme cau- 
tion, or it may cause serious mischief. Such 
action cannot possibly have good effect on the 
only matter that can ever cause trouble between 
Japan and the United States the settlement in 
mass by individuals of either nation within the 
limits of the other nation. Such immigration 
is the only thing that can ever cause trouble be- 
tween these two peoples; and if permitted it is 



absolutely certain that the trouble will be caused. 
It can be dealt with only by the two national gov- 
ernments themselves. 

All true friends of international good-will be- 
tween the two countries, all men who recognize 
that good-will for the other should be a prime 
feature of the foreign policy of each, will face 
this fact and deal with it. The treatment of it 
should be on an absolutely reciprocal basis. Ex- 
actly the same types and classes should be admit- 
ted and excluded, in one country as in the other. 
Students, travelers, men engaged in interna- 
tional business, sojourners for scholarship, health 
or pleasure, of either country ought to be 
welcomed in the other; and not thus to wel- 
come them indicates defective civilization in the 
should-be hosts. But it is essentially to the in- 
terest of both that neither should admit the work- 
ers industrial or agricultural or engaged in 
small trade from the other, for neither country 
is yet ready to admit such settlement in mass, 
and nothing but grave harm can come from per- 
mitting it. 

Instead of ignoring this fact, it would be bet- 
ter frankly to acknowledge and recognize it. It 
does not in any way imply any inferiority in 
either nation to the other ; it merely connotes the 
acceptance of the truth that in international as in 
private affairs, it is well not to hurry matters 



that if unhurried will in the end come out all 
right. The astounding thing, the thing unprec- 
edented in all history, is that two civilized peo- 
ples whose civilizations had developed for thou- 
sands of years on almost wholly independent 
lines, should within half a century grow so close 
together. Fifty years ago there was no intellec- 
tual or social community at all between the two 
nations. Nowadays, the man of broad cultiva- 
tion, whether in statesmanship, science, art or 
philosophy, who dwells in one country, is as much 
at home in the other as is a Russian in England, 
or a Spaniard in the United States, or an Italian 
in Sweden; the men of this type, whether Jap- 
anese or Europeans, or North or South Ameri- 
cans, are knit together in a kind of freemasonry 
of social and intellectual taste. 

It is quite impossible that a movement like this 
shall be as rapid throughout all the classes of 
society as among the selected few. It has taken 
many centuries for Europeans to achieve a com- 
mon standard such as to permit of the free im- 
migration of the workers of one nation into an- 
other nation, and there is small cause for won- 
der in the fact that a few decades have been in- 
sufficient to bring it about between Japan and the 
American and Australian commonwealths. Ja- 
pan would not, and could not, at this time afford 
to admit into competition with her own people 



masses of immigrants, industrial or agricultural 
workers, or miners or small tradesmen, from the 
United States. It would be equally unwise for 
the United States to admit similar groups from 
Japan. This does not mean that either side is 
inferior; it means that they are different. 

Three or four centuries ago exactly the same 
thing was true as between and among the Euro- 
pean countries from which the ancestors of the 
mixed people of the United States came. At that 
time English mobs killed and drove out Flemish 
and French workingmen; Scotchmen would not 
tolerate the presence of Englishmen even in time 
of peace; Germans and Scandinavians met on 
terms of intimacy only when they fought one an- 
other; and Russians as immigrants in western 
Europe were quite as unthinkable as Tartars. 
Normally, no one of these nations would then 
have tolerated any immigration of the people of 
any other. Yet they were all of practically the 
same racial blood, and in essentials of the same 
ancestral culture, that of Graeco-Roman Chris- 
tianity. And their descendants not only now live 
side by side in the United States, but have 
merged into one people. What would have been 
ruinous even to attempt four centuries ago now 
seems entirely natural because it has gone on so 
slowly. To try to force the process with unnat- 
ural speed would have insured disaster, even af- 



ter the upper classes of the countries concerned 
had already begun to mingle on a footing of 

Surely these obvious historical facts have their 
lesson for Japanese and American statesmen to- 
day. Three centuries ago the students, the 
writers, the educated and cultivated men in Eng- 
land and France (countries of equal, and prac- 
tically the same, civilization) associated less in- 
timately than the like men of America and Japan 
do to-day, and any attempt at immigration of 
the workers of one country into the other would 
have been met by immediate rioting. Time, and 
time alone, rendered possible the constantly 
closer association of the peoples. Time must be 
given the same chance now, in order to secure a 
lasting and firmly based friendship between the 
Japanese and the English-speaking peoples of 
America and Australia. 

The volume which has served as a text for this 
article is only one additional proof of the way 
in which Japan has modernized and brought 
abreast of all modern needs her high and ancient 
civilization. She is already playing a very great 
part in the civilized world. She will play a still 
greater part in the future. It may well be that 
she will prove the regenerator of all eastern 
Asia. She and the United States have great in- 
terests on and in the Pacific. These interests in 



no way conflict. They can be served to best 
purpose for each nation by the heartiest and 
most friendly cooperation between them on a 
footing of absolute equality. There is but one 
real chance of friction. This should be elimi- 
nated, not by pretending to ignore facts, but by 
facing them with good-natured and courteous 
wisdom for, as Emerson somewhere says, "in 
the long run the most unpleasant truth is a safer 
traveling companion than the most agreeable 
falsehood." Each country should receive exactly 
the rights which it grants. Travelers, scholars, 
men engaged in international business, all so- 
journers for health, pleasure and study, should 
be heartily welcomed in both countries. From 
neither country should there be any emigration 
of workers of any kind to, or any settlement in 
mass in, the other country. 



IN 1903 a shameless and sordid attempt was 
made by the then dictator of Colombia and 
his subordinate fellow-politicians at Bogota to 
force the United States by scandalously improper 
tactics to pay a vastly larger sum for the priv- 
ilege of building the Panama Canal than had 
been agreed upon in a solemn treaty. As Presi- 
dent of the United States I resisted this attempt, 
and prevented the United States from being 
blackmailed. Had I not successfully resisted the 
attempt, the Panama Canal would not now be 
built, and would probably never have been built. 
The attempt was blackmail then; and to yield to 
it now is to yield to blackmail. 

Yet the present Administration now proposes 
to pay Colombia twenty-five million dollars, and 
to make what is practically an apology for our 
conduct in acquiring the right to build the canal. 
Apparently this is done on the theory of soothing 
the would-be blackmailers and making them for- 
get the mortification caused them by the failure 



of their initial attempt to hold up the United 

In brief, the facts in the case were as follows: 
A private French company had attempted to 
build a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and 
had failed after making only a beginning of the 
work. Various propositions for a trans-Isthmian 
canal to be undertaken by the United States Gov- 
ernment had been made. One of these was to 
cross the Isthmus at Darien. Another was a 
proposition to go through Nicaragua. Different 
companies had been organized in the United 
States to back these different propositions. One 
of these companies had ex-Senator Warner Mil- 
ler at its head. The then Senator Platt of New 
York was much interested in another company. 
Congress only considered seriously, however, the 
Panama and Nicaragua routes, and was in much 
doubt between them. A commission of experts 
appointed by the President for that purpose had 
reported that if we could buy the rights of the 
French canal company for $40,000,000 we ought 
to take the Panama route, but that otherwise we 
should take the Nicaragua route. It was at that 
time well and widely known that the sum of 
$10,000,000 (aside from a small yearly payment 
to be made on different grounds) was all that we 
would pay or would be asked to pay Colombia, 
and Colombia herself had advertised this fact. 



The recommendation, therefore, was in effect 
that we should go by Panama if we could acquire 
our rights by paying $40,000,000 to the French 
and $10,000,000 to the Colombians. 

The French had real rights. They had spent 
hundreds of millions of dollars, and although 
much of this had been wasted, yet we received 
at least $40,000,000 worth of property and of ac- 
complished work for the $40,000,000 we agreed 
to pay them. Colombia had no rights that were 
not of the most shadowy and unsubstantial kind; 
and even these shadowy rights existed only be- 
cause of the action of the United States. She 
had done nothing whatever except to misgovern 
the Isthmus for fifty years. During these fifty 
years her possession of the Isthmus as against 
foreign powers had been maintained solely by the 
guarantee and the potential strength of the 
United States. The only effective policing of the 
Isthmus during those fifty years had been done 
by the United States on the frequent occasions 
when it was forced to land marines and sailors 
for that purpose. Ten million dollars repre- 
sented the very outside limit which generosity 
could fix as a payment to Colombia for rights 
which she was impotent to maintain save by our 
assistance and protection, and for an opportunity 
which she was utterly unable herself to develop. 
Nobody of any consequence in the United States, 



within or without Congress, would at that time 
for one moment have considered agreeing to pay 
$25,000,000 or any sum remotely approaching it. 

If Colombia had at that time announced any 
such demand, unquestionably the Congress of 
the United States would have directed the Execu- 
tive to take the Nicaragua route. The exact 
language of Congress in its Act providing for 
the construction of the canal, approved June 28, 
1902, was that if "the President be unable to 
obtain for the United States a satisfactory title 
to the property of the New Panama Canal Com- 
pany and the control of the necessary territory of 
the Republic of Colombia within a reasonable 
time and upon reasonable terms, then the Presi- 
dent" should endeavor to provide for a canal by 
the Nicaragua route. 

This language defined with exactness and pre- 
cision what was to be done, and what as a matter 
of fact I actually did. I was directed to take the 
Nicaragua route, but only if within a reasonable 
time I could not obtain control of the necessary 
territory of the Republic of Colombia upon rea- 
sonable terms ; the direction being explicit that if 
I could not thus get the control within a reason- 
able time and upon reasonable terms I must go 
to Nicaragua. Colombia showed by its actions 
that it was thoroughly acquainted with this fact, 
and eagerly demanded and entered into a treaty 



with the United States, the Hay-Herran treaty, 
under which $10,000,000 was the price stipu- 
lated to be paid in exchange for our acquiring 
the right to the zone on which to build the canal. 

Let it be remembered that this $10,000,000 
was the price stipulated by Colombia herself as 
payment to those in possession of the Isthmus, 
and it was the price we actually did pay to those 
who actually were in possession of the Isthmus. 
The only difference was that, thanks to the most 
just and proper revolution which freed Panama 
from the intolerable oppression and wrongdoing 
of Colombia, we were able to give this $10,000,- 
ooo to the men who themselves dwelt on the Isth- 
mus, instead of to alien taskmasters and oppres- 
sors of theirs. 

The proposal now is that after having paid 
$10,000,000 to the rightful owners of the Isth- 
mus we shall in addition pay $25,000,000 to their 
former taskmasters and oppressors; a sum two 
and a half times what, these tricky oppressors 
originally asked, a sum which is to be paid to 
them merely because they failed in carrying to 
successful completion what must truthfully be 
characterized as a bit of international villainy as 
wicked as it was preposterous. In point of good 
sense and sound morality, the proposal is exactly 
on a par with paying a discomfited burglar a 
heavy sum for the damage done his feelings by 



detecting him and expelling him from the house. 

Our people should also remember that what we 
were paying for was the right to expend our 
own money and our own labor to do a piece of 
work which if left undone would render the 
Isthmus of Panama utterly valueless. If we had 
gone to Nicaragua, or had undertaken to build 
a canal anywhere else across the Isthmus, then 
the right which Colombia was so eager to sell 
for $10,000,000 would not have been worth ten 
cents. The whole value was created by our pros- 
pective action; and this action was to be taken 
wholly at our own expense and without making 
Colombia or any one else pay a dollar, and this 
although no power would benefit more by the 
canal than Colombia, as it would give her water- 
way communication by a short and almost direct 
route between her Caribbean and Pacific ports. 

The people of the United States should remem- 
ber that the United States paid $50,000,000 to 
Panama and the French company for every real 
right of every sort or description which existed 
on the Isthmus. There would have been no value 
even to these rights unless for the action that the 
United States then intended to take, and has 
since actually taken. The property of the French 
company would not have been worth any more 
than any other scrap heap save for our subse- 
quent action, and the right to cross the Isthmus 



of Panama would have been valueless to Colom- 
bia or to any other nation or body of men if we 
had failed to build a canal across it and had built 
one somewhere else. The whole value then and 
now of any right upon that Isthmus depended 
upon the fact that we then intended to spend and 
now have spent in building the canal some $375,- 

The proposal of Mr. Wilson's Administration 
is that, having given to the Isthmus of Panama 
its whole present value by the expenditure of 
$375,000,000, we shall now pay $25,000,000 ad- 
ditional to the power that did its best to prevent 
the Isthmus from having any value by treacher- 
ously depriving us of the right to build the canal 
at all, or to spend a dollar on the Isthmus. If 
Colombia's action had been successful, the Isth- 
mus would now be worthless; and yet the pres- 
ent Administration actually proposes to pay her 
$25,000,000 so as to atone to her for our not 
having permitted her to follow a course of con- 
duct which would have prevented the Isthmus 
from being worth twenty-five cents. 

Most people, when we began the building of 
the canal, believed that we would fail. There 
were plenty of such skeptics in this country, and 
a much larger number abroad. If the American 
engineers had not been successful, if the Ameri- 
can people had not backed them with money, and 

3 11 


if the Government had not started the work on 
a basis of absolutely non-partisan efficiency, 
there would exist nothing for which to pay any 
sum at the present moment. This proposed 
treaty is a proposal to pay blackmail to that 
Government which sought in vain to forbid us 
to use our national efficiency in the interest of 
the world at large. 

I cannot too strongly emphasize the fact that 
Panama represented to Colombia an asset of no 
value whatsoever save such as might accrue from 
the action which we were ready to undertake at 
great expense. She enjoyed this asset at all only 
because of our guaranteeing her against having 
it taken away from her by any foreign power. 
We had never guaranteed her against a move- 
ment for independence on the Isthmus, or against 
action on our own part if she misbehaved her- 
self. Presidents and secretaries of state had 
repeatedly given the true interpretation of the 
obligations to New Granada (the South Ameri- 
can republic which then included the present Re- 
public of Colombia) by the treaty of 1846. In 
1856 Secretary Cass officially stated the position 
of the Government as follows : 

Sovereignty has its duties as well as its 

rights, and none of these local governments 

(on the Isthmus) would be permitted in a 

spirit of Eastern isolation to close the gates 



of intercourse on the great highways of the 
world, and justify the act by the pretension 
that these avenues of trade and travel be- 
long to them and that they choose to shut 
them, or what is almost equivalent, to en- 
cumber them with such unjust relations as 
would prevent their general use. 

Seven years later Secretary Seward in differ- 
ent communications explicitly stated that the 
United States had not undertaken any duty in 
connection with "any question of internal revo- 
lution in the state of Panama" but merely "to 
protect the transit trade across the Isthmus 
against invasion of either domestic or foreign 
disturbers ;" and that the United States had not 
"become bound to take sides in the domestic 
broils of New Granada" but merely to protect 
New Granada "as against other and foreign gov- 
ernments." In the final portion of my message 
to Congress of December 7, 1903, and in my 
special message to Congress of January 4, 1904, 
I enumerated a partial list of revolutions, insur- 
rections, disturbances and other outbreaks that 
had occurred on the Isthmus of Panama during 
the fifty-three years preceding the negotiation of 
our treaty with the Republic of Panama itself. 
These revolutions, unsuccessful rebellions and 
other outbreaks numbered just fifty-three during 
these fifty-three years. 


In detail they are as follows : 

May 22, 1850. Outbreak; two Americans 
killed. War vessel demanded to quell outbreak. 

October, 1850. Revolutionary plot to brings 
about independence of the Isthmus. 

July 22, 1851. Revolution in four southern 

November 14, 1851. Outbreak at Chagres. 
Man-of-war requested for Chagres. 

June 27, 1853. Insurrection at Bogota and 
consequent disturbance on Isthmus. War vessel 

May 23, 1854. Political disturbances. War 
vessel requested. 

June 28, 1854. Attempted revolution. 

October 24, 1854. Independence of Isthmus 
demanded by provincial legislature. 

April, 1856. Riot and massacre of Ameri- 

May 4, 1856. Riot. 

May 18, 1856. Riot. 

June 3, 1856. Riot. 

October 2, 1856. Conflict between two native 
parties. United States forces landed. 

December 18, 1858. Attempted secession of 

April, 1859. Riots. 

September, 1860. Outbreaks. 


October 4, 1860. Landing of United States 
forces in consequence. 

May 23, 1861. Intervention of the United 
States forces required by intendente. 

October 2, 1861. Insurrection and civil war. 

April 4, 1862. Measures to prevent rebels 
crossing Isthmus. 

June 13, 1862. Mosquera's troops refused ad- 
mittance to Panama. 

March, 1865. Revolution, and United States 
troops landed. 

August, 1865. Riots; unsuccessful attempt to 
invade Panama. 

March, 1866. Unsuccessful revolution. 

April, 1867. Attempt to overthrow Govern- 

August, 1867. Attempt at revolution. 

July 5, 1868. Revolution; provisional govern- 
ment inaugurated. 

August 29, 1868. Revolution; provisional 
government overthrown. 

April, 1871. Revolution; followed apparently 
by counter revolution. 

April, 1873. Revolution and civil war which 
lasted to October, 1875. 

August, 1876. Civil war which lasted until 
April, 1877. 

July, 1878. Rebellion. 

December, 1878. Revolt. 


April, 1879. Revolution. 

June, 1879. Revolution. 

March, 1883. Riot. 

May, 1883. Riot. 

June, 1884. Revolutionary attempt. 

December, 1884. Revolutionary attempt. 

January, 1885. Revolutionary disturbances. 

March, 1885. Revolution. 

April, 1887. Disturbance on Panama Rail- 

November, 1887. Disturbance on line of 

January, 1889. Riot. 

January, 1895. Revolution which lasted until 

March, 1895. Incendiary attempt. 

October, 1899. Revolution. 

February, 1900, to July, 1900. Revolution. 

January, 1901. Revolution. 

July, 1901. Revolutionary disturbances. 

September, 1901. City of Colon taken by 

March, 1902. Revolutionary disturbances. 

July, 1902. Revolution. 

Colombia had shown herself utterly incapable 
of keeping order on the Isthmus. Only the ac- 
tive interference of the United States had en- 
abled her to preserve so much as a semblance of 
sovereignty. In 1856, in 1860, and in 1873, in 



1885, in 1901, and in 1902, sailors and marines 
from United States warships were forced to land 
in order to protect life and property and to see 
that the transit across the Isthmus was kept open. 
In 1 86 1, in 1862, in 1885, and in 1900, the Colom- 
bia Government asked for the landing of troops 
by the United States Government to protect its 
interests and to maintain order on the Isthmus. 
Immediately after the revolution by which Pan- 
ama obtained its independence in 1903, the Co- 
lombian Government made another request to 
land troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty. 

This request was made through General Reyes, 
afterward President of the republic. President 
Marroquin in making the request offered if we 
would grant it, to "approve by decree" the rati- 
fication of the Hay-Herran canal treaty as 
signed, acting thus "by virtue of vested consti- 
tutional authority," or if the Government of the 
United States preferred, to call an extra session 
of Congress "with new and friendly members" 
to approve the treaty. 

This dispatch has an especial interest. In the 
first place, it requested the United States to re- 
store order and secure Colombia supremacy on 
the very Isthmus from which the Colombian 
Government had just decided to bar us by pre- 
venting the construction of the canal. In the 
second place, by the offer made it showed that the 


constitutional objections which had been urged 
against ratifying the treaty were obviously not 
made in good faith, and that the Government 
which made the treaty really had absolute con- 
trol over its ratification, but chose to exercise 
that control adversely to us. As a matter of 
fact, whatever duty we had in the peninsula was 
to the Panamanians and not to the Colombians at 
all. As John Hay put it, "the covenant ran with 
the land." Our original treaty was with the 
United States of New Granada. This body suf- 
fered various changes, various portions splitting 
off and sometimes rejoining, and finally the Re- 
public of Colombia succeeded to most of it. We, 
however, recognized whatever power was in law- 
ful possession of the Isthmus, as the successor 
of the one with which we had made the treaty. 

In the constitutions of 1858 and 1861, Panama 
explicitly reserved the right to 'secede from the 
confederation and to nullify any act inconsistent 
with its own "autonomy." Colombia later pub- 
lished a new constitution by Executive Decree, 
reducing Panama to the condition of a crown 
colony; but Panama never accepted this action 
as proper, and when in 1903 it set up an inde- 
pendent government by unanimous action of her 
citizens, they were merely reasserting the con- 
stitutional and legal rights which they had never 


As Secretary Root wrote the Colombian Min- 
ister in 1906, our action in recognizing the inde- 
pendence of Panama was merely "a recognition 
of the just rights of the people of Panama." On 
technical grounds Panama's case was clear, Co- 
lombia had no case whatever, and the United 
States was bound to act as she did act. Morally, 
of course, there is no question whatever that 
Panama's action was imperatively demanded and 
that the United States would have been guilty 
of culpable misconduct toward an oppressed peo- 
ple if she had failed to support Panama. 

I wish to emphasize the nature of the Colom- 
bian Government at the time when Panama de- 
clared her independence. It was a pure dictator- 
ship. This was no concern of ours; for I hold 
it is not our affair to say to another nation what 
kind of government it shall have save in so far 
as the rights of our own citizens or of our own 
Government are concerned. The then Presi- 
dent, Mr. Marroquin, had been elected as vice- 
president. Soon after his inauguration by a coup 
d'etat he unseated the President and put him in 
prison. He then announced that under the Con- 
stitution, in the absence of the President, the 
vice-president wielded all the executive powers. 
Accordingly he exercised them. 

In a few months the absence of the President 
became permanent, for he opportunely died in 


prison, and Mr. Marroquin continued to act as 
President. He declined to call Congress together 
for a period in the neighborhood of five years, 
and announced that under the Constitution in 
the absence of Congress he possessed all the leg- 
islative functions. Accordingly he exercised 
these also. He was careful to explain that his 
course was entirely "constitutional" and that it 
was in accordance with the mandate of the Con- 
stitution that he who had been elected vice-presi- 
dent exercised all the functions both of Presi- 
dent and of Congress. As a matter of fact, while 
he did not permit any elections to take place for 
a number of years, yet his power was so absolute 
that he elected whomever he wished as soon as 
the election did take place ; as already related, he 
notified me, when it became to his interest to do 
so, that he would elect a Congress with a guar- 
antee that it would perform what he desired in 
case I would be satisfied therewith. 

Having this absolute power not only to initiate 
but to ratify and carry out any treaty, he, through 
Mr. Herran, negotiated with Mr. Hay a treaty 
with the United States Government which con- 
ceded us the right to take the Panama Canal zone 
and build the canal for the sum of $10,000,000. 
(I disregard the minor details of the treaty.) 
He was exceedingly anxious to negotiate this 
treaty because it was a matter vital to Panama, 



and therefore of concern to the absentee owners 
of Panama ; for if the treaty were not negotiated 
it was certain that the United States would go 
to Nicaragua. Having this treaty, and having 
received from the French company the assurance 
that they would sell us that property for 
$40,000,000, we selected the Panama route. As 
soon as we had done this Mr. Marroquin and his 
associates concluded that we were hopelessly com- 
mitted, and that it was safe for him to repudiate 
his promise and try to extort more money. Un- 
der its original contract the time during which 
the French company had to complete the canal 
lapsed the following year. Colombia had 
granted an extension of some years; but Mr. 
Marroquin and his associates now announced 
that this extension of time, which they had them- 
selves given, was unconstitutional. 

Again I wish to call attention to the solemn 
farce, the contemptible farce, of these men ap- 
pealing to the Constitution as a make-believe 
fetish, when the entire governmental power of 
the nation was vested at the moment in an irre- 
sponsible dictator who had never been elected to 
the office of President at all, who refused to sum- 
mon Congress, and who yet exercised all its pow- 
ers in the absence of Congress. It was dishonest 
on their part thus to talk of the Constitution, and 



it is an act of unspeakable silliness for any of our 
people to take that talk seriously. 

Accordingly Marroquin summoned a Con- 
gress, the only one that had been held under his 
Administration. It was an absolutely obsequious 
body. It did not attempt to pass a law, or do 
anything but repudiate the proposed treaty. Its 
committee, in the report which the Congress 
adopted, announced the real object of their ac- 
tion when it said that the following year the 
rights of the French company would lapse and 
Colombia would take possession of the French 
company's belongings, and then would be in a 
"more advantageous" position to negotiate with 
the United States. In other words, they expected 
to combine piracy with blackmail, and to take 
possession of the French company's belongings 
and get from us the $40,000,000 we were to pay 
the French. Of course France would never have 
allowed this, and if I had acted with the pliant 
submission to Colombia's demand which the pres- 
ent Administration is at this moment showing, 
we would have had on the Isthmus France in- 
stead of Colombia, and the difficulty and danger 
of the whole problem would have been infinitely 

The Congress as well as the Dictator had am- 
ple warning of all the dangers they by their ac- 
tion were inviting. Representatives from Pan- 



ama warned the Colombian Administration that 
Panama would revolt if the treaty was rejected; 
and our Department of State in the gravest man- 
ner called their attention to the serious situation 
their conduct would create. 

Our Minister, Mr. Beaupre, an admirable pub- 
lic servant, who unlike his successor who nego- 
tiated the preposterous treaty now before the 
Senate conceived himself under obligation 
faithfully to represent the interests of the Amer- 
ican people, encountered great difficulties while 
endeavoring to perform his duties at this time. 
The State Department's messages to him were 
intercepted, and in several cases not delivered, 
as shown in his cable to Hay of August 6, 1903 ; 
and he was directed by the Department of State 
to protest against such interference with his of- 
ficial communications. Mr. Beaupre showed con- 
clusively in his correspondence that the delay in 
dealing with the Panama Canal treaty by Colom- 
bia was for the purpose of wringing money from 
either the French company or the United States, 
or both. 

For example, in his message of June 10, 1903, 
he stated that the local agent of the Panama Ca- 
nal Company had informed him that he had re- 
ceived an official note from the Colombian Gov- 
ernment stating that the treaty would be rejected 
unless the French company paid Colombia 



$10,000,000. This shows that the Colombian 
Government then expected only twenty millions 
all told ten legitimately from us and ten as an 
extorted bribe from the unfortunate French com- 
pany. President Wilson now proposes to give 
five millions extra, apparently to soothe the feel- 
ings of those who failed to extort a smaller sum 
by scandalously improper methods. 

In his message of July 21, Minister Beaupre 
reported that the Colombian Government had 
sounded both Germany and England to see if they 
could not be persuaded to construct, or aid in the 
construction of, the canal in place of the United 
States. The Government of Colombia, there- 
fore, not only sought to blackmail us and to 
blackmail the French company, but endeavored 
to put one of the great Old World powers on the 
Isthmus in possession of the canal. And because 
the then Administration refused to submit to 
such infamy on the part of Colombia, the pres- 
ent Administration actually proposes to pay the 
wrongdoer $25,000,000 of blackmail. 

There are in every great country a few men 
whose mental or moral make-up is such that they 
always try to smirch their own people, and some- 
times go to the length of moral treason in the 
effort to discredit their own national government. 
A campaign of mendacity was started against 
this treaty from the outset by certain public men 

3 2 4 


and certain newspapers. One of the favorite 
assertions of these men and newspapers was that 
the United States Government had in some way 
or other instigated, and through its agents been 
privy to, the revolutionary movement on the Isth- 
mus. The statement is a deliberate falsehood, 
and every man who makes it knows that it is a 
falsehood. Mr. H. A. Gudger, late Chief Judge 
of the Department of Panama, was consul in 
Panama at the time, and had been consul for 
six years previously. It was impossible for any 
such encouragement or aid by the United States 
Government of the revolutionary movement to 
have occurred without his knowledge, and he has 
explicitly stated that he did not know of any 
such encouragement. 

Mr. Hay, on behalf of the State Department, 
made an exactly similar statement to me at the 
same time. I repeated the statement in my mes- 
sage to Congress. The simple truth, as every- 
body with any knowledge knew at the time, was 
that the Isthmus was seething with revolution, 
and that a revolution was certain to occur if the 
treaty were rejected. Minister Beaupre notified 
us that the Panama delegates in the Congress 
during the debates about the treaty, had in- 
formed the Congress explicitly that such would 
be the case. The newspapers of the United States 
repeatedly published news from Panama stating 

3 2 5 


that such revolutions were impending. Quota- 
tions from the daily papers could be multiplied 
to prove this. It is only necessary to refer to the 
Washington Post of August 31 and of Septem- 
ber i, the New York Herald of September 10, the 
New York Times of September 13, the New York 
Herald of October 26, the Washington Post of 
October 29, the New York Herald of October 30 
and of November 2 ; all of the year 1903. 

In my special message to Congress of January 
4, 1904, 1 described the report made to me at the 
request of Lieutenant-General Young by Captain 
Humphrey and Lieutenant Murphy of the Army, 
who in the course of a visit which on their own 
initiative (and without my knowledge) they had 
made to Panama, had discovered that various 
revolutionary movements were being inaugu- 
rated, and that a revolution would certainly 
occur, possibly immediately after the closing of 
the Colombian Congress at the end of October, 
but probably not before early November. This 
definitely localized the probability of the revo- 
lution taking place somewhere during the last 
ten days of October, or the first week in No- 
vember. This was known on the Isthmus. It 
was known to the American newspapers. It was 
also known at Bogota, where measures were 
taken to meet the situation. If it had not been 
known to the President and to the Secretary of 



State, they would have shown themselves culp- 
ably unfit for their positions. 

After my interview with the army officers 
named, on October 16 I directed the Navy De- 
partment to issue instructions to send ships to the 
Isthmus so as to protect American interests and 
the lives of American citizens if a revolutionary 
outbreak should occur. Most fortunately the 
United States steamer Nashville, under Com- 
mander Hubbard, in consequence of these orders, 
reached the Isthmus just in time to prevent a 
bloody massacre of American men, women and 
children. Troops from Bogota had already been 
landed in Colon on November 3, when the revo- 
lution broke out on the same day. On November 
4, as Commander Hubbard officially reported, his 
marines were landed, in view of the fact that the 
American Consul had been notified by the officer 
commanding the Colombia troops that he in- 
tended to open fire on the town of Colon at 2 
p. m. and kill every United States citizen in the 
place. Accordingly various men, women and 
children took refuge first in the shed of the Pan- 
ama Railway Company, and then on a German 
steamer and a Panama Railway steamer which 
were at the dock. Commander Hubbard showed 
himself loyal to the best traditions of the Ameri- 
can Navy. He brought the Nashville close up to 
the water-front, landed some of his men to gar- 

3 2 7 


risen the shed of the Panama Railway Company, 
and although the Colombians outnumbered him 
ten to one, succeeded in protecting the lives of the 
American citizens who were menaced. Thanks 
to the firmness of himself and his men, he so im- 
pressed the Colombian commander that next day 
the latter reembarked and withdrew with his 
troops to Colombia. 

So far from there having been too much fore- 
sight about the revolution on the part of the 
American Government, this plain official account 
by a naval officer of what occurred on November 
4 showed that the American Government had, if 
anything, delayed too long its orders for the 
movement of American warships to Panama, and 
that it was only the coolness and gallantry of 
forty-two marines and sailors in the face of ten 
times their number of armed foes that prevented 
the carrying out of the atrocious threat of the 
Colombian commander. In accordance with our 
settled principles of conduct we refused to allow 
the transportation of troops across the Isthmus 
by either the Colombians or the Panamanians, 
so as to prevent bloodshed and interference with 

No one connected with this Government had 
any part in preparing, inciting or encouraging 
the revolution on the Isthmus of Panama. Save 
from the reports of our military and naval offi- 



cers given in full in the message of the President 
to the Senate, and from the official reports in the 
Department of State, no one connected with the 
Government had any previous knowledge of the 
revolution except such as was accessible to any 
person of ordinary intelligence who read the 
newspapers and kept up a current acquaintance 
with public affairs. 

Secretary of State John Hay stated officially 
at the time : 

The action of the President in the 
Panama matter is not only in the strictest 
accordance with the best precedents of our 
public policy, but it was the only course he 
could have taken in compliance with our 
treaty rights and obligations. 

I saw at the time very many men, Americans, 
natives of Panama, and Europeans, all of whom 
told me that they believed a revolution was im- 
pending, and most of whom asked me to take 
sides one way or the other. The most noted of 
these men whom I now recollect seeing was Mr. 
Bunau-Varilla. He, however, did not ask me to 
take sides one way or the other. To no one of 
these men did I give any private assurance of any 
kind one way or the other, referring them simply 
to my published declarations and acts. 

For some reason certain newspapers have re- 
3 2 9 


peatedly stated that Mr. Nelson Cromwell was 
responsible for the revolution. I do not remem- 
ber whether Mr. Nelson Cromwell was or was 
not among my callers during the months immedi- 
ately preceding the revolution. But if he was I 
certainly did not discuss with him anything con- 
nected with the revolution. I do not remember 
his ever speaking to me about the revolution until 
after it occurred, and my understanding was, 
and is, that he had nothing whatever to do with 
the revolutionary movement which actually took 

There were, as I have said, various revolution- 
ary movements on foot in the Isthmus, and it was 
my understanding that there was considerable 
jealousy among the instigators of these move- 
ments as to which one would come off first and 
would be effective. On information received af- 
ter the event, I believed then, and believe now, 
that the revolutionary movement which actually 
succeeded was the one with which Mr. Bunau- 
Varilla was connected. He was sent by the Gov- 
ernment of Panama as Minister to this country 
as soon as Panama became an independent state, 
and he then made no secret of the fact that he 
had been one of those who had organized the suc- 
cessful revolution; precisely as was the case with 
the President and other officials of the new re- 
public. Neither did Mr. Bunau-Varilla make 



any secret of the fact that in acting as he did he 
was influenced both by his indignation as a resi- 
dent of Panama at the Colombian treatment of 
Panama, and also by his indignation as a French- 
man at the Colombian proposal to blackmail the 
company, and if it would not submit to black- 
mail, then to confiscate its possessions. 

In view of this double attitude of the Colom- 
bian Government, an attitude of tyranny toward 
Panama and of robbery toward the French com- 
pany, Mr. Bunau-Varilla conceived it to be his 
duty to do all he could to aid the natives of Pan- 
ama in throwing off the yoke of Colombia. I 
believe his attitude was entirely proper, alike 
from the standpoint of his duty as a resident of 
Panama, from the standpoint of his duty as a 
Frenchman to the investors and property holders 
of the French company, and from the standpoint 
of his duty as a citizen of the world. But until 
after the event I had no knowledge of his activi- 
ties save the knowledge possessed by all intelli- 
gent men who had studied the affairs of the Isth- 
mus. I gave him no aid or encouragement. My 
attitude was open to the knowledge of all; it was 
set forth with minute accuracy in my message to 

No one connected with the American Govern- 
ment instigated the revolution. I thought that a 
revolution might very probably occur, but so far 

33 1 


from fomenting it I was at the time, as has re- 
peatedly been made public since, preparing my 
message on the basis that it would be necessary 
for us openly to take possession of the Isthmus 
in view of the scandalous conduct of Colombia. 
However, the fact that the revolution occurred 
and that the independent republic of Panama was 
actually seated on the Isthmus, rendered it un- 
necessary for me to send in this original draft of 
my message. 

Even had I desired to foment a revolution 
which I did not it would have been wholly un- 
necessary for me to do so. The Isthmus was 
seething with revolution. Any interference from 
me would have had to take the shape of prevent- 
ing a revolution, not of creating one. All the 
people residing on the Isthmus ardently desired 
the revolution. The citizens of Panama desired 
it. Every municipal council, every governmental 
body the citizens themselves could elect or con- 
trol, demanded and supported it. When the rev- 
olution had occurred, and was successful, and 
Panama was an independent republic, I certainly 
did prevent Colombia from carrying on a bloody 
war on the Isthmus in the effort to overthrow the 
revolutionists. I certainly did refuse to do what 
Colombia requested, that is, to use the Army and 
Navy of the United States against our friends in 
the interests of the foes who had just been trying 



to blackmail us. We were solemnly pledged to 
keep transit across the Isthmus open. Again and 
again we had landed forces in time of revolu- 
tionary disturbance to secure this object. If Co- 
lombia had attempted the reconquest of the Isth- 
mus, there would have been a far more bloody 
contest than ever before on the Isthmus, and the 
only way by which that contest could have been 
carried on would have been by using the railroad 
line and interrupting transit across the Isthmus. 

It is therefore perfectly true that I prevented 
any attempt by Colombia to land troops on the 
Isthmus and plunge the Isthmus into a long 
drawn-out and bloody war. What I did then 
was as plainly my duty as it would be the duty of 
the President to act in a similar manner now. 
Panama was an independent republic de facto 
then just as she is now. Colombia had not a 
particle more right to land troops and conquer 
her then than she has now. If I was wrong in 
preventing Colombia from making an effort by 
a long drawn-out and bloody war to reconquer 
the Isthmus in 1903, then it would be a wrong 
to prevent her from making a similar effort at 
reconquest now. 

If Mr. Wilson is sincere in his criticism of me 
for preventing such a war of reconquest in 1903, 
it is his duty to permit Colombia unhampered 
to make the reconquest at this moment; and 



to advocate one course of action is not one whit 
more immoral than to advocate the other. 
This Administration pretends to be for "peace." 
My course has brought twelve years of abso- 
lute peace to the Isthmus, for the first time 
in its history, and any other course would have 
plunged it into bloodshed. The Administration 
stands for a make-believe peace of cowardice. I 
stand for what I then secured : the real and last- 
ing peace of honor and justice. 

Among the provisions in the present proposed 
treaty with Colombia is the following phrase : 

The Republic of Colombia shall be at lib- 
erty at all times to transport through the 
interoceanic canal its troops, materials of 
war, and ships of war, even in case of war 
between Colombia and another country, 
without paying any charges to the United 

To grant such a right to both Colombia and 
Panama was permissible so long as we also in- 
sisted on exercising it ourselves, on the grounds 
set forth by the then Secretary of State, Mr. Root, 
in his note to the British Government of January 
1 6, 1909. In this note Secretary Root took the 
ground that the United States had the right to 
except from "coming within any schedule of tolls 
which might thereafter be established" the ships 



of the powers entering into the agreement neces- 
sary in order to give title to the land through 
which the canal was to be built, and to authorize 
its construction and the necessary jurisdiction or 
control over it when built. These nations were 
Panama, Colombia and the United States. Since 
then the present Administration has surrendered 
the right so far as the United States is concerned ; 
and yet it proposes to give to the most enven- 
omed opponent of the building of the canal rights 
to its use which are denied to the power giving 
the rights. In other words, the Administration 
says that our people, who built the canal, can give 
to others rights which they dare not themselves 
exercise. Such a position is a wicked absurdity. 
Moreover, the proposed treaty may be con- 
strued under certain conditions to give Colombia 
the right to use the canal in a war against Pan- 
ama, and we could only prevent such an outrage 
by breaking faith. We have already guaranteed 
the independence of Panama against Colombia 
by a solemn treaty. The Administration now 
proposes to guarantee to Colombia the right to 
use the canal against Panama. The two con- 
flicting guarantees could not both be observed. 
Doubtless in the event of such conflict the United 
States would refuse to allow Colombia the rights 
which the proposed treaty would grant her; and 
in that case another and far greater grievance 



would be committed against Colombia; and then 
some future Administration, if it possessed the 
present Administration's nervous amiability to- 
ward all nations hostile to America, might agree 
to pay a hundred millions, with a suitable apol- 
ogy, as atonement for the conduct of its prede- 

It may seem as if I am discussing the future 
possible actions of American Administrations 
ironically. I am really discussing them quite seri- 
ously. If the proposed treaty is ratified, it will 
render it quite impossible to consider any treaty 
as beyond the realm of probability. It had never 
entered my head that President Wilson could do 
what he proposes to do in connection with the 
proposed treaty with Colombia. If we pay 
$25,000,000 to Colombia now, then there is no 
reason why we should not at some future time 
pay her another $100,000,000; or pay Mexico ten 
times that sum for having taken Texas and Cali- 
fornia, Arizona and New Mexico ; or pay a hun- 
dred times that sum to Great Britain because our 
ancestors deprived her of the thirteen colonies. 

The Administration has succeeded in getting 
Congress to take the position that the United 
States has no special rights in its own canal. It 
now proposes by treaty to get Congress to give 
to the one nation which conspicuously wronged 
us in connection with that canal special rights 



which it would deny to ourselves and to all other 
countries. President Wilson denies that we have 
the right to exempt our own vessels engaged in 
peaceful coast commerce from tolls, and yet he 
now proposes to exempt from tolls the war ves- 
sels and transports of Colombia. Three years 
ago I should have deemed it impossible that two 
such propositions could have been entertained by 
the same Administration. Furthermore, the 
President, through the Secretary of State, has re- 
cently stated that "if cordial relations are to be 
restored to Colombia, they must be restored on a 
basis that is satisfactory to Colombia." On the 
contrary, I take the position that the basis should 
be one of justice and right, and therefore one sat- 
isfactory to the honor and dignity of the United 
States Government and of the American people. 
The Administration's attitude is precisely as if 
when a householder has a disagreement with a 
burglar the effort should be to restore "peace" 
upon a basis satisfactory to the burglar instead 
of to the householder. Any burglar will wel- 
come the "peace" which comes if the householder 
tenders him a large sum of money to atone for 
the heartlessness of a former occupant of the 
house in preventing him from getting away with 
the loose silver. 

Mr. Bryan has also stated that Colombia suf- 
fered a loss financially, which we ought to make 



up, when she lost Panama. This represents the 
doctrine that when one country holds another in 
subjection and by misgovernment drives it to re- 
volt, the moral and equitable rights are on the 
side of the tyrant country and not on the country 
that has declared its independence. If Mr. Bryan 
is right in his theory, France owes Great Britain 
an enormous sum of money for its misconduct in 
assisting the revolted colonies to become the 
United States of America. Yet the misgovern- 
ment of the colonies by Great Britain against 
which the colonies revolted did not even remotely 
approach the misgovernment against which Pan- 
ama revolted; and it would not be more absurd 
for President Wilson to take the position that 
France owes Great Britain an enormous sum of 
money for her conduct in the Revolutionary War 
than to take the position which is now taken in 
reference to the payment of this $25,000,000 of 
sheer blackmail to Colombia. 

We have at different times paid sums of money 
to various nations for the acquisition of territory 
from them. We have paid money to Russia and 
to France. We have paid money to Spain. But 
we have never paid to any nation, not to the most 
powerful European nation, nor to any American 
nation, a sum of money equal to the sum which 
it is now proposed to pay to Colombia in tender- 
ing her an apology for having refused to permit 



her to reconquer a little people whom she had 
shamelessly oppressed, and for having acquired 
the right which she sought to deny us, the right 
to spend hundreds of millions of our own money 
in constructing a canal in our own interest, in 
her interest, and in the interest of all the civi- 
lized powers of the world. 

As Mr. Bonaparte, late Attorney-General, has 

By the treaty we promise to pay Colom- 
bia, as a compensation for an alleged injury, 
a much larger sum of money than we paid 
France for Louisiana, or Mexico for Cali- 
fornia, or Spain for the Philippines, or 
Panama for the Canal Zone, or than Great 
Britain paid us in settlement of the Alabama 
claims; if we acknowledge that we have so 
wronged her as as to make it proper for us 
to buy her forgiveness, it is consistent and 
appropriate to add to this acknowledgment 
of wrong an apology, or, in other words, 
an expression of sorrow ; if we have nothing 
to apologize for, because we have done her 
no wrong, then it is utterly unworthy of a 
great nation and a forfeiture of our right 
to self-respect for us to pay her a red cent. 

The proposed treaty is a crime against the 
United States. It is an attack upon the honor 
of the United States which if justified would con- 
vict the United States of infamy. It is a menace 



to the future well-being of our people. Either 
there is or there is not warrant for paying this 
enormous sum and for making the apology. If 
there is no warrant for it and of course not the 
slightest vestige of warrant exists then the pay- 
ment is simply the payment of belated blackmail. 
If there is warrant for it, then we have no busi- 
ness to be on the Isthmus at all. The payment 
can only be justified upon the ground that this 
nation has played the part of a thief, or of a re- 
ceiver of stolen goods. In such a case it would 
be a crime to remain on the Isthmus, and it is 
much worse than an absurdity for the President, 
who wishes to pay the $25,000,000, to take part 
in opening the canal ; for if the President and the 
Secretary of State are justified in paying the 
$25,000,000, it is proof positive that in opening 
the canal they are in their own opinion engaged 
in the dedication of stolen goods. 

To recapitulate: 

i. The land could not have been acquired and 
the canal could not have been built save by tak- 
ing precisely and exactly the action which was 
taken. Unless the nation is prepared heartily to 
indorse and stand by this action, it has no right 
to take any pride in anything that has been done 
on the Isthmus and it has no right to remain on 
the Isthmus. If there is a moral justification for 
paying Colombia $25,000,000, then there is no 


moral justification for our staying on the Isth- 
mus at all and we should promptly get off. If 
President Wilson is right in his position, then he 
has no business to take part in any ceremony 
connected with opening the canal; on his theory 
he would be engaged in the dedication of stolen 

2. In the words of John Hay, "the covenant 
ran with the land." Our agreement was with the 
power which owned the Isthmus of Panama, 
whether this was New Granada or Colombia or 
Panama itself. This agreement guaranteed the 
state that was in control of the Isthmus against 
interference by foreign powers, but it imposed 
no responsibility upon us as regards internecine 
troubles. This was explicitly set forth in state- 
ments by Secretaries Cass and Seward, one a 
Democrat and one a Republican. 

As a matter of fact, every action we took was 
not only open and straightforward, but was ren- 
dered absolutely necessary by the misconduct of 
Colombia.. Every action we took was in accord- 
ance with the highest principles of national, in- 
ternational, and private morality. The honor 
of the United States, and the interest not only of 
the United States but of the world, demanded 
the building of the canal. The canal could not 
have been built, it would not now have been be- 
gun, had our Government not acted precisely as 


it did act in 1903. No action ever taken by the 
Government, in dealing with any foreign power 
since the days of the Revolution, was more vi- 
tally necessary to the well-being of our people, 
and no action we ever took was taken with a 
higher regard for the standards of honor, of 
courage, and of efficiency which should distin- 
guish the attitude of the United States in all its 
dealings with the rest of the world. 




FEAR God and take your own part ! This is 
another way of saying that a nation must 
have power and will for self-sacrifice and also 
power and will for self -protection. There must 
be both unselfishness and self-expression, each to 
supplement the other, neither wholly good with- 
out the other. The nation must be willing to 
stand disinterestedly for a lofty, ideal and yet it 
must also be able to insist that its own rights be 
heeded by others. Evil will come if it does not 
possess the will and the power for unselfish action 
on behalf of non-utilitarian ideals and also the 
will and the power for self-mastery, self-control, 
self-discipline. It must possess those high and 
stern qualities of soul which will enable it to 
conquer softness and weakness and timidity and 
train itself to subordinate momentary pleasure, 
momentary profit, momentary safety to the larger 

There is not the slightest use of saying any of 
this unless we are willing and able to translate 
our speech into action. National unselfishness 



and self-sacrifice must be an affair of deeds. To 
utter lofty sentiments on the subject, to indulge 
in oratory about it, to write notes about it, and 
then when the occasion arises not to act in ac- 
cordance with these sentiments, means moral 
degradation for the nation. Oratorical insincer- 
ity of this kind is nauseating to all honest men. 
Prolonged indulgence in this kind of emotional 
insincerity eats into the moral fiber of the people 
like a corrosive acid. 

In the spring of 1910 at Christiania before the 
Nobel Prize Committee, in acknowledging the 
receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, I outlined the 
plan for securing international peace by means of 
an international league pledged to put force back 
of it, the plan which I elaborated in the volume 
published over a year ago called "America and 
the World War." But it is a sham and a mock- 
ery to advocate such a plan until and unless we 
in the first place make it evident that when we 
give a promise we mean to keep it, and in the 
next place make it evident that we are willing to 
show the courage, the resolution, the forethought 
in training and preparation that will enable us to 
put strength behind our promise. I believe in 
nationalism as the absolute pre-requisite to inter- 
nationalism. I believe in patriotism as the abso- 
lute pre-requisite to the larger Americanism. I 
believe in Americanism because unless our people 



are good Americans first, America can accom- 
plish little or nothing worth accomplishing for 
the good of the world as a whole. 

But none of these objects can be attained by 
merely talking about them. National unselfish- 
ness and self-sacrifice, national self-mastery, and 
the development of national power, can never be 
achieved by words alone. National unselfishness 
which is another way of saying service ren- 
dered to internationalism can become effective 
only if the nation is willing to sacrifice some- 
thing, is willing to face risk and effort and endure 
hardship in order to render service. The tower- 
ing idealism of Lincoln's Gettysburg speech and 
second inaugural counted only because it repre- 
sented the labor and effort and willingness to 
face death and eager pride in fighting for ideals, 
which marked a mighty people led by a mighty 

We of America, thanks to the failure of Presi- 
dent Wilson's Administration to do its duty, 
have ourselves failed to serve the cause of inter- 
nationalism as it was our bounden duty to serve 
it by standing efficiently for heroic Belgium 
when, under the lead of their heroic King and 
Queen, the Belgian people chose to tread the hard 
path of national suffering and honor rather than 
the easy path which led through fields of safety 
and disgrace. The Belgians have walked through 



the valley of the shadow rather than prove false 
to their ideals. We, rich, prosperous, at ease, 
and potentially powerful, have not lifted a finger 
to right their wrongs, lest our own safety and 
comfort might be jeopardized. This represents 
on our part neither readiness for national self- 
sacrifice, nor appreciation of true international- 
ism. It represents the gross selfishness which 
puts material well-being above fealty to a high 

This national selfishness, manifested under the 
lead of President Wilson and Secretary Bryan, 
was doubly offensive because it was loudly trum- 
peted as a virtue. One of our besetting sins as a 
nation has been to encourage in our public serv- 
ants, in our speech-making leaders of all kinds, 
the preaching of impossible ideals; and then to 
treat this as offsetting the fact that in practice 
these representatives did not live up to any ideals 
whatever. The vital need is that we as a nation 
shall say what we mean and shall make our public 
servants say what they mean ; say it to other na- 
tions and say it to us, ourselves. Let us demand 
that we and they preach realizable ideals and that 
we and they live up to the ideals thus preached. 
Let there be no impassable gulf between exuber- 
ance of impossible promise and pitiful insuffi- 
ciency in quality of possible performance. 

Belgium is the test of just how much our pub- 


lie servants and our professional humanitarians 
mean when they speak in favor of high ideals 
and lofty international morality. If we clamor 
for peace without saying that Belgium's wrongs 
are to be righted before peace can properly come, 
we are false to every true standard of interna- 
tional morality. If we are not willing to encoun- 
ter hazard and the risk of loss and the need of 
effort in order to help Belgium, then we show 
ourselves unfit to talk about internationalism. 

But this is not all. It is odious hypocrisy to 
do as this Administration has done and refuse to 
stand for the rights of neutrals when, as in the 
case of Belgium, these rights were most fla- 
grantly trodden under foot, but when we had no 
pecuniary interest involved ; and yet promptly to 
clamor on behalf of the rights of neutrals when 
the exercise of these rights would redound to our 
own pecuniary advantage. This is to put the 
body above the soul, the dollar above the man. 
Moreover, when we thus, in the first and greatest 
case of the violation of neutral rights, flinched 
from our duty, we rendered it impossible with 
effect or indeed with propriety to protest about 
subsequent and lesser violations of neutral rights. 
With colossal effrontery Germany, the first and 
infinitely the greatest offender against humanity 
and the rights of neutrals, has clamored that 
we should take steps to "secure neutral rights on 



the seas," to "establish the freedom of the seas," 
"to secure the neutralization of the ocean." The 
pro-Germans on this side of the water have re- 
peated these words with parrot-like fidelity of 
phrase. In the first place, all offences against 
the freedom of the seas that have been perpe- 
trated in this war are unimportant compared 
with the infamy committed on Belgium save 
only those offences committed by the German and 
Austrian submarines, which resulted in the mur- 
der of over two thousand non-combatants. In 
the next place, until the civilized world which is 
at peace, and more especially the United States, 
in some way takes effective action to rebuke the 
violation by Germany of the neutralized territory 
of Belgium, it is utterly useless to talk about the 
neutralization of the seas. If the United States 
had promptly and effectively interfered on behalf 
of Belgium, it would have been its clear duty to 
interfere against all the nations who on sea or on 
shore have subsequently been guilty of violations 
of international law and of the rules laid down in 
The Hague Conventions, the Geneva Convention 
and other similar conventions. But until the first 
duty has been efficiently performed and the major 
offender dealt with, it is a proof of cowardice 
and of bad faith to deal with minor offences. 

Let us be true to our democratic ideal, not by 
the utterance of cheap platitudes, not by windy 



oratory, but by living our lives in such manner 
as to show that democracy can be efficient in 
promoting the public welfare during periods of 
peace and efficient in securing national freedom 
in time of war. If a free government cannot or- 
ganize and maintain armies and navies which 
can and will fight as well as those of an autocracy 
or a despotism, it will not survive. We must have 
a first-class navy and a first-class professional 
army. We must also secure universal and obliga- 
tory military training for all our young men. 
Our democracy must prove itself effective in 
making the people healthy, strong and industri- 
ally productive, in securing justice, in inspiring 
intense patriotism and in making every man and 
woman within our borders realize that if they are 
not willing at time of need to serve the nation 
against all comers in war, they are not fit to be 
citizens of the nation in time of peace. The 
democratic ideal must be that of subordinating 
chaos to order, of subordinating the individual to 
the community, of subordinating individual self- 
ishness to collective self-sacrifice for a lofty ideal, 
of training every man to realize that no one is 
entitled to citizenship in a great free common- 
wealth unless he does his full duty to his neigh- 
bor, his full duty in his family life, and his full 
duty to the nation ; and unless he is prepared to 
do this duty not only in time of peace but also in 



time of war. It is by no means necessary that a 
great nation should always stand at the heroic 
level. But no nation has the root of greatness 
in it unless in time of need it can rise to the heroic 




On the ninth of May, 1915, two days after the 
Lusitania was torpedoed without warning by a Ger- 
man submarine, I made the following statement in 
the press: 

THE German submarines have established no ef- 
fective blockade of the British and French coast 
lines. They have endeavored to prevent the access of 
French, British and neutral ships to Britain and France 
by attacks upon them which defy every principle of in- 
ternational law as laid down in innumerable existing 
treaties, including The Hague Conventions. Many of 
these attacks have represented pure piracy; and not 
a few of them have been accompanied by murder on 
an extended scale. In the case of the Lusitania the scale 
was so vast that the murder became wholesale. 

A number of American ships had already been tor- 
pedoed in similar fashion. In two cases American lives 
were lost. When the Lusitania sank some twelve hun- 
dred non-combatants, men, women and children, were 
drowned, and more than a hundred of these were Ameri- 
cans. Centuries have passed since any war vessel of 
a civilized power has shown such ruthless brutality 
toward non-combatants, and especially toward women 
and children. The Moslem pirates of the Barbary Coast 
behaved at times in similar fashion, until the civilized 



nations joined in suppressing them ; and the other pirates 
who were outcasts from among these civilized nations 
also at one time perpetrated similar deeds, until they 
were sunk or hung. But none of these old-time pirates 
committed murder on so vast a scale as in the case of the 

The day after the tragedy the newspapers reported 
in one column that in Queenstown there lay by the score 
the bodies of women and children, some of the dead 
women still clasping the bodies of the little children 
they held in their arms when death overwhelmed them. 
In another column they reported the glee expressed 
by the Berlin journals at this "great victory of German 
naval policy." It was a victory over the defenceless 
and the unoffending, and its signs and trophies were 
the bodies of the murdered women and children. 

Our treaties with Prussia in 1785, 1799, and 1828, 
still in force in this regard, provide that if one of the 
contracting parties should be at war with any other 
power the free intercourse and commerce of the subjects 
or citizens of the party remaining neutral with the bel- 
ligerent powers shall not be interrupted. Germany 
has treated this treaty as she has 1 treated other scraps 
of paper. 

But the offence goes far deeper than this. The action 
of the German submarines in the cases cited can be 
justified only by a plea which would likewise justify 
the wholesale poisoning of wells in the path of a hostile 
army, or the shipping of infected rags into the cities 
of a hostile country; a plea which would justify the 
torture of prisoners and the reduction of captured women 
to the slavery of concubinage. Those who advance such 
a plea will accept but one counter plea strength, the 
strength and courage of the just man armed. 



When those who guide the military policy of a state 
hold up to the soldiers of their army the Huns, and 
the terror once caused by the Huns, for their imitation, 
they thereby render themselves responsible for any Hun- 
nish deed which may follow. The destruction of cities 
like Louvain and Dinant, the scientific vivisection of 
Belgium as a warning to other nations, the hideous 
wrongdoing to civilians, men, women and children in 
Belgium and northern France, in order thereby to ter- 
rorize the civilian population all these deeds, and those 
like them, done on the land, have now been paralleled 
by what has happened on the sea. 

In the teeth of these things, we earn as a nation meas- 
ureless scorn and contempt if we follow the lead of 
those who exalt peace above righteousness, if we heed 
the voices of those feeble folk who bleat to high heaven 
that there is peace when there is no peace. For many 
months our government has preserved between right and 
wrong a neutrality which would have excited the emu- 
lous admiration of Pontius Pilate the arch-typical neu- 
tral of all time. We have urged as a justification for 
failing to do our duty in Mexico that to do so would 
benefit American dollars. Are we now to change 
faces and advance the supreme interest of American 
dollars as a justification for continuance in the re- 
fusal to do the duty imposed on us in connection with 
the world war? 

Unless we act with immediate decision and vigor 
we shall have failed in the duty demanded by humanity 
at large, and demanded even more clearly by the self- 
respect of the American Republic." 

We did not act with immediate decision and vigor. 
We did not act at all. The President immediately after 
the sinking made a speech in which occurred his sen- 



tence about our "being too proud to fight." This was 
accepted, very properly, by foreign nations as the state- 
ment of our official head that we ranked in point of na- 
tional spirit and power with China. I then published the 
following interview : 

"I think that China is entitled to draw all the 
comfort she can from this statement, and it would 
be well for the United States to ponder seriously 
what the effect upon China has been of managing 
her foreign affairs during the last fifteen years on 
the theory thus enunciated. 

"If the United States is satisfied with occupying 
some time in the future the precise international 
position that China now occupies, then the United 
States can afford to act on this theory. But it 
cannot so act if it desires to regain the position 
won for it under Washington and by the men 
who in the days of Abraham Lincoln wore the blue 
under Grant and the gray under Lee. 

"I very earnestly hope that the President will act 
promptly. The proper time for deliberation was 
prior to sending his message that our Government 
would hold Germany to a 'strict accountability' 
if it did the things which it has now actually 

"The 150 babies drowned on the Liisitania, the 
hundreds of women drowned with them scores 
of these women and children being Americans 
and the American ship, the Gulflight, which was 
torpedoed, offer an eloquent commentary on the 
actual working of the theory that it is not neces- 
sary to assert rights and that a policy of blood 


and iron can safely be met by a policy of milk and 

"I see it stated in the dispatches from Washing- 
ton that Germany now offers to stop the practice 
of murder on the high seas, committed in viola- 
tion of the neutral rights she is pledged to pre- 
serve, if we will now abandon further neutral rights, 
which by her treaty she has solemnly pledged herself 
to see that we exercise without molestation. 

"Such a proposal is not even entitled to an answer. 
The manufacture and shipments of arms and am- 
munition to any belligerent is moral or immoral, 
according to the use to which the arms and muni- 
tions are to be put. If they are to be used to 
prevent the redress of hideous wrongs inflicted on 
Belgium then it is immoral to ship them. If they 
are to be used for the redress of those wrongs and 
the restoration of Belgium to her deeply-wronged 
and unoffending people, then it is eminently moral 
to send them. 

"Without 24 hours' delay this country should and 
could take effective action. It should take possession 
of all the interned German ships, including the Ger- 
man warships, and hold them as a guarantee that 
ample satisfaction shall be given us. Furthermore 
it should declare that in view of Germany's mur- 
derous offences against the rights of neutrals all 
commerce with Germany shall be forthwith forbid- 
den and all commerce of every kind permitted and 
encouraged with France, England, Russia, and the 
rest of the civilized world. 

"I do not believe that the firm assertion of our 
rights means war, but, in any event, it is well to 
remember there are things worse than war. 



"Let us as a nation understand that peace is worth 
having only when it is the hand-maiden of inter- 
national righteousness and of national self-respect." 




'Address delivered before the Knights of Columbus, Car- 
negie Hall, New York, Oct. 12, 1915 

FOUR centuries and a quarter have gone by since 
Columbus by discovering America opened the great- 
est era in world history. Four centuries have passed since 
the Spaniards began that colonization on the main land 
which has resulted in the growth of the nations of Latin- 
America. Three centuries have passed since, with the 
settlements on the coasts of Virginia and Massachusetts, 
the real history of what is now the United States began. 
All this we ultimately owe to the action of an Italian sea- 
man in the service of a Spanish King and a Spanish 
Queen. It is eminently fitting that one of the largest and 
most influential social organizations of this great Repub- 
lic, a Republic in which the tongue is English, and the 
blood derived from many sources should, in its name, 
commemorate the great Italian. It is eminently fitting to 
make an address on Americanism before this society. 

We of the United States need above all things to re- 
member that, while we are by blood and culture kin to 
each of the nations of Europe, we are also separate from 
each of them. We are a new and distinct nationality. 
We are developing our own distinctive culture and civili- 
zation, and the worth of this civilization will largely de- 
pend upon our determination to keep it distinctively our 



own. Our sons and daughters should be educated here 
and not abroad. We should freely take from every other 
nation whatever we can make of use, but we should adopt 
and develop to our own peculiar needs what we thus take, 
and never be content merely to copy. 

Our nation was founded to perpetuate democratic prin- 
ciples. These principles are that each man is to be treated 
on his worth as a man without regard to the land from 
which his forefathers came and without regard to the 
creed which he professes. If the United States proves 
false to these principles of civil and religious liberty, it 
will have inflicted the greatest blow on the system of free 
popular government that has ever been inflicted. Here 
we have had a virgin continent on which to try the experi- 
ment of making out of divers race stocks a new nation 
and of treating all the citizens of that nation in such a 
fashion as to preserve them equality of opportunity in 
industrial, civil and political life. Our duty is to secure 
each man against any injustice by his fellows. 

One of the most important things to secure for him is 
the right to hold and to express the religious views that 
best meet his own soul needs. Any political movement 
directed against any body of our fellow citizens because 
of their religious creed is a grave offense against Amer- 
ican principles and American institutions. It is a wicked 
thing either to support or to oppose a man because of the 
creed he professes. This applies to Jew and Gentile, to 
Catholic and Protestant, and to the man who would be 
regarded as unorthodox by all of them alike. Political 
movements directed against certain men because of their 
religious belief, and intended to prevent men of that creed 
from holding office, have never accomplished anything but 
harm. This was true in the days of the "Know-Nothing" 
and Native-American parties in the middle of the last 


century; and it is just as true to-day. Such a movement 
directly contravenes the spirit of the Constitution itself. 
Washington and his associates believed that it was essen- 
tial to the existence of this Republic that there should 
never be any union of Church and State; and such union 
is partially accomplished wherever a given creed is aided 
by the State or when any public servant is elected or 
defeated because of his creed. The Constitution ex- 
plicitly forbids the requiring of any religious test as a 
qualification for holding office. To impose such a test 
by popular vote is as bad as to impose it by law. To vote 
either for or against a man because of his creed is to 
impose upon him a religious test and is a clear violation 
of the spirit of the Constitution. 

Moreover, it is well to remember that these movements 
never achieve the end they nominally have in view. They 
do nothing whatsoever except to increase among the men 
of the various churches the spirit of sectarian intolerance 
which is base and unlovely in any civilization but which 
is utterly revolting among a free people that profess the 
principles we profess. No such movement can ever per- 
manently succeed here. All that it does is for a decade 
or so greatly to increase the spirit of theological animos- 
ity, both among the people to whom it appeals and among 
the people whom it assails. Furthermore, it has in the 
past invariably resulted, in so far as it was successful at 
all, in putting unworthy men into office ; for there is noth- 
ing that a man of loose principles and of evil practices in 
public life so desires as the chance to distract attention 
from his own shortcomings and misdeeds by exciting and 
inflaming theological and sectarian prejudice. 

We must recognize that it is a cardinal sin against 
democracy to support a man for public office because he 
belongs to a given creed or to oppose him because he 



belongs to a given creed. It is just as evil as to draw the 
line between class and class, between occupation and occu- 
pation in political life. No man who tries to draw either 
line is a good American. True Americanism demands 
that we judge each man on his conduct, that we so judge 
him in private life and that we so judge him in public 
life. The line of cleavage drawn on principle and con- 
duct in public affairs is never in any healthy community 
identical with the line of cleavage between creed and 
creed or between class and class. On the contrary, where 
the community life is healthy, these lines of cleavage 
almost always run nearly at right angles to one another. 
It is eminently necessary to all of us that we should have 
able and honest public officials in the nation, in the city, 
in the state. If we make a serious and resolute effort to 
get such officials of the right kind, men who shall not only 
be honest but shall be able and shall take the right view 
of public questions, we will find as a matter of fact that 
the men we thus choose will be drawn from the professors 
of every creed and from among men who do not adhere 
to any creed. 

For thirty-five years I have been more or less actively 
engaged in public life, in the performance of my political 
duties, now in a public position, now in a private position. 
I have fought with all the fervor I possessed for the vari- 
ous causes in which with all my heart I believed ; and in 
every fight I thus made I have had with me and against 
me Catholics, Protestants and Jews. There have been 
times when I have had to make the fight for or against 
some man of each creed on grounds of plain public moral- 
ity, unconnected with questions of public policy. There 
were other times when I have made such a fight for or 
against a given man, not on grounds of public morality, 
for he may have been morally a good man, but on account 



of his attitude on questions of public policy, of govern- 
mental principle. In both cases, I have always found 
myself fighting beside, and fighting against, men of every 
creed. The one sure way to have secured the defeat of 
every good principle worth fighting for would have been 
to have permitted the fight to be changed into one along 
sectarian lines and inspired by the spirit of sectarian bit- 
terness, either for the purpose of putting into public life 
or of keeping out of public life the believers in any given 
creed. Such conduct represents an assault upon Amer- 
icanism. The man guilty of it is not a good American. 

I hold that in this country there must be complete sev- 
erance of Church and State; that public moneys shall 
not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular 
creed ; and therefore that the public schools shall be non- 
sectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sec- 
tarian schools. As a necessary corollary to this, not only 
the pupils but the members of the teaching force and the 
school officials of all kinds must be treated exactly on a 
par, no matter what their creed; and there must be no 
more discrimination against Jew or Catholic or Protestant 
than discrimination in favor of Jew, Catholic or Protest- 
ant. Whoever makes such discrimination is an enemy of 
the public schools. 

What is true of creed is no less true of nationality. 
There is no room in this country for hyphenated Amer- 
icanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do 
not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very 
best Americans I have ever known were naturalized 
Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated 
American is not an American at all. This is just as true 
of the man who puts "native" before the hyphen as of 
the man who puts German or Irish or English or French 
before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit 



and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the 
United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man 
who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and 
singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was 
born, he is just as good an American as any one else. 

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation 
to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to 
be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a 
tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of 
German-Americans, Irish- Americans, English- Americans, 
French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian- 
Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each 
at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that 
nationality than with the other citizens of the American 
Republic. The men who do not become Americans and 
nothing else are hyphenated Americans ; and there ought 
to be no room for them in this country. The man who 
calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by 
his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign 
land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of 
our body politic. He has no place here ; and the sooner he 
returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegi- 
ance, the better it will be for every good American. There 
is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good 
American. The only man who is a good American is the 
man who is an American and nothing else. 

I appeal to history. Among the generals of Wash- 
ington in the Revolutionary War were Greene, Putnam 
and Lee, who were of English descent ; Wayne and Sulli- 
van, who were of Irish descent; Marion, who was of 
French descent ; Schuyler, who was of Dutch descent, and 
Muhlenberg and Herkimer, who were of German descent. 
But they were all of them Americans and nothing else, 
just as much as Washington. Carroll of Carrollton was 



a Catholic ; Hancock a Protestant ; Jefferson was hetero- 
dox from the standpoint of any orthodox creed ; but these 
and all the other signers of the Declaration of Independ- 
ence stood on an equality of duty and right and liberty, 
as Americans and nothing else. 

So it was in the Civil War. Farragut's father was born 
in Spain and Sheridan's father in Ireland ; Sherman and 
Thomas were of English and Custer of German descent ; 
and Grant came of a long line of American ancestors 
whose original home had been Scotland. But the Admiral 
was not a Spanish- American ; and the Generals were not 
Scotch-Americans or Irish-Americans or English-Amer- 
icans or German-Americans. They were all Americans 
and nothing else. This was just as true of Lee and of 
Stonewall Jackson and of Beauregard. 

When in 1909 our battlefleet returned from its voyage 
around the world, Admirals Wainwright and Schroeder 
represented the best traditions and the most efficient 
action in our navy ; one was of old American blood and of 
English descent ; the other was the son of German immi- 
grants. But one was not a native-American and the 
other a German- American. Each was an American pure 
and simple. Each bore allegiance only to the flag of the 
United States. Each would have been incapable of con- 
sidering the interests of Germany or of England or of any 
other country except the United States. 

To take charge of the most important work under my 
administration, the building of the Panama Canal, I 
chose General Goethals. Both of his parents were born 
in Holland. But he was just plain United States. He 
wasn't a Dutch- American ; if he had been I wouldn't have 
appointed him. So it was with such men, among those 
who served under me, as Admiral Osterhaus and General 
Barry. The father of one was born in Germany, the 



father of the other in Ireland. But they were both Amer- 
icans, pure and simple, and first rate fighting men in addi- 

In my Cabinet at the time there were men of English 
and French, German, Irish and Dutch blood, men born 
on this side and men born in Germany and Scotland ; but 
they were all Americans and nothing else ; and every one 
of them was incapable of thinking of himself or of his 
fellow-countrymen, excepting in terms of American citi- 
zenship. If any one of them had anything in the nature 
of a dual or divided allegiance in his soul, he never would 
have been appointed to serve under me, and he would 
have been instantly removed when the discovery was 
made. There wasn't one of them who was capable of 
desiring that the policy of the United States should be 
shaped with reference to the interests of any foreign 
country or with consideration for anything, outside of 
the general welfare of humanity, save the honor and 
interest of the United States, and each was incapable of 
making any discrimination whatsoever among the citizens 
of the country he served, of our common country, save 
discrimination based on conduct and on conduct alone. 

For an American citizen to vote as a German-Amer- 
ican, an Irish-American or an English-American is to be 
a traitor to American institutions ; and those hyphenated 
Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats 
of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the Amer- 
ican Republic. 

Now this is a declaration of principles. How are we 
in practical fashion to secure the making of these prin- 
ciples part of the very fiber of our national life? First 
and foremost let us all resolve that in this country here- 
after we shall place far less emphasis upon the question 
of right and much greater emphasis upon the matter of 

3 6 4 


duty. A republic can't succeed and won't succeed in the 
tremendous international stress of the modern world 
unless its citizens possess that form of high-minded 
patriotism which consists in putting devotion to duty 
before the question of individual rights. This must be 
done in our family relations or the family will go to 
pieces ; and no better tract for family life in this country 
can be imagined than the little story called "Mother," 
written by an American woman, Kathleen Norris, who 
happens to be a member of your own church. 

What is true of the family, the foundation stone of 
our national life, is not less true of the entire super- 
structure. I am, as you know, a most ardent believer in 
national preparedness against war as a means of securing 
that honorable and self-respecting peace which is the 
only peace desired by all high-spirited people. But it is 
an absolute impossibility to secure such preparedness in 
full and proper form if it is an isolated feature of our 
policy. The lamentable fate of Belgium has shown that 
no justice in legislation or success in business will be of 
the slightest avail if the nation has not prepared in ad- 
vance the strength to protect its rights. But it is equally 
true that there cannot be this preparation in advance for 
military strength unless there is a solid basis of civil and 
social life behind it. There must be social, economic and 
military preparedness all alike, all harmoniously devel- 
oped; and above all there must be spiritual and mental 

There must be not merely preparedness in things ma- 
terial ; there must be preparedness in soul and mind. To 
prepare a great army and navy without preparing a 
proper national spirit would avail nothing. And if there 
is not only a proper national spirit but proper national 
intelligence, we shall realize that even from the stand- 


point of the army and navy some civil preparedness is 
indispensable. For example, a plan for national defence 
which does not include the most far-reaching use and 
co-operation of our railroads must prove largely futile. 
These railroads are organized in time of peace. But we 
must have the most carefully thought out organization 
from the national and centralized standpoint in order to 
use them in time of war. This means first that those in 
charge of them from the highest to the lowest must 
understand their duty in time of war, must be permeated 
with the spirit of genuine patriotism; and second, that 
they and we shall understand that efficiency is as essen- 
tial as patriotism; one is useless without the other. 

Again : every citizen should be trained sedulously by 
every activity at our command to realize his duty to the 
nation. In France at this moment the workingmen who 
are not at the front are spending all their energies with 
the single thought of helping their brethren at the front 
by what they do in the munition plants, on the railroads, 
in the factories. It is a shocking, a lamentable thing that 
many of the trade unions of England have taken a 
directly opposite view. It is doubtless true that many 
of their employers have made excessive profits out of 
war conditions; and the Government should have dras- 
tically controlled and minimized such profit-making. 
Such wealthy men should be dealt with in radical fashion ; 
but their misconduct doesn't excuse the misconduct of 
those labor men who are trying to make gains at the 
cost of their brethren who fight in the trenches. The 
thing for us Americans to realize is that we must do 
our best to prevent similar conditions from growing 
up here. Business men, professional men, and wage 
workers alike must understand that there should be no 
question of their enjoying any rights whatsoever un- 



less in the fullest way they recognize and live up to the 
duties that go with those rights. This is just as true of 
the corporation as of the trade union, and if either cor- 
poration or trade union fails heartily to acknowledge this 
truth, then its activities are necessarily anti-social and 
detrimental to the welfare of the body politic as a whole. 
In war time, when the welfare of the nation is at stake, 
it should be accepted as axiomatic that the employer is 
to make no profit out of the war save that which is 
necessary to the efficient running of the business and to 
the living expenses of himself and family, and that the 
wage worker is to treat his wage from exactly the same 
standpoint and is to see to it that the labor organization 
to which he belongs is, in all its activities, subordinated 
to the service of the nation. 

Now there must be some application of this spirit in 
times of peace or we cannot suddenly develop it in time 
of war. The strike situation in the United States at this 
time is a scandal to the country as a whole and discredit- 
able alike to employer and employee. Any employer who 
fails to recognize that human rights come first and that 
the friendly relationship between himself and those work- 
ing for him should be one of partnership and comrade- 
ship in mutual help no less than self-help is recreant to 
his duty as an American citizen and it is to his interest, 
having in view the enormous destruction of life in the 
present war, to conserve, and to train to higher efficiency 
alike for his benefit and for its, the labor supply. In 
return any employee who acts along the lines publicly 
advocated by the men who profess to speak for the 
I. W. W. is not merely an open enemy of business but of 
this entire country and is out of place in our government. 

You, Knights of Columbus, are particularly fitted to 
play a great part in the movement for national solidarity, 



without which there can be no real efficiency in either 
peace or war. During the last year and a quarter it has 
been brought home to us in startling fashion that many 
of the elements of our nation are not yet properly fused. 
It ought to be a literally appalling fact that members of 
two of the foreign embassies in this country have been 
discovered to be implicated in inciting their fellow-coun- 
trymen, whether naturalized American citizens or not, to 
the destruction of property and the crippling of American 
industries that are operating in accordance with internal 
law and international agreement. The malign activity 
of one of these embassies, the Austrian, has been brought 
home directly to the ambassador in such shape that his 
recall has been forced. The activities of the other, the 
German, have been set forth in detail by the publication 
in the press of its letters in such fashion as to make it 
perfectly clear that they were of the same general char- 
acter. Of course, the two embassies were merely carry- 
ing out the instructions of their home governments. 

Nor is it only the Germans and Austrians who take the 
view that as a matter of right they can treat their coun- 
trymen resident in America, even if naturalized citizens 
of the United States, as their allies and subjects to be 
used in keeping alive separate national groups profoundly 
anti- American in sentiment if the contest comes between 
American interests and those of foreign lands in ques- 
tion. It has recently been announced that the Russian 
government is to rent a house in New York as a national 
center to be Russian in faith and patriotism, to foster 
the Russian language and keep alive the national feeling 
in immigrants who come hither. All of this is utterly 
antagonistic to proper American sentiment, whether per- 
petrated in the name of Germany, of Austria, of Russia, 
of England, or France or any other country. 



We should meet this situation by on the one hand 
seeing that these immigrants get all their rights as Amer- 
ican citizens, and on the other hand insisting that they 
live up to their duties as American citizens. Any dis- 
crimination against aliens is a wrong, for it tends to put 
the immigrant at a disadvantage and to cause him to feel 
bitterness and resentment during the very years when 
he should be preparing himself for American citizenship. 
If an immigrant is not fit to become a citizen, he should 
not be allowed to come here. If he is fit, he should be 
given all the rights to earn his own livelihood, and to 
better himself, that any man can have. Take such a mat- 
ter as the illiteracy test ; I entirely agree with those who 
feel that many very excellent possible citizens would be 
barred improperly by an illiteracy test. But why do you 
not admit aliens under a bond to learn to read and write 
English within a certain time ? It would then be a duty to 
see that they were given ample opportunity to learn to 
read and write and that they were deported if they failed 
to take advantage of the opportunity. No man can be a 
good citizen if he is not at least in process of learning to 
speak the language of his fellow-citizens. And an alien 
who remains here without learning to speak English for 
more than a certain number of years should at the end of 
that time be treated as haying refused to take the pre- 
liminary steps necessary to complete Americanization and 
should be deported. But there should be no denial or 
limitation of the alien's opportunity to work, to own 
property and to take advantage of civic opportunities. 
Special legislation should deal with the aliens who do not 
come here to be made citizens. But the alien who comes 
here intending to become a citizen should be helped in 
every way to advance himself, should be removed from 
every possible disadvantage and in return should be re- 



quired under penalty of being sent back to the country 
from which he came, to prove that he is in good faith 
fitting himself to be an American citizen. We should set 
a high standard, and insist on men reaching it; but if 
they do reach it we should treat them as on a full equality 
with ourselves. 

Therefore, we should devote ourselves as a preparative 
to preparedness, alike in peace and war, to secure the 
three elemental things ; one, a common language, the Eng- 
lish language; two, the increase in our social loyalty 
citizenship absolutely undivided, a citizenship which ac- 
knowledges no flag except the flag of the United States 
and which emphatically repudiates all duality of na- 
tional loyalty; and third, an intelligent and resolute 
effort for the removal of industrial and social unrest, an 
effort which shall aim equally to secure every man his 
rights and to make every man understand that unless he 
in good faith performs his duties he is not entitled to any 
rights at all. 

The American people should itself do these things for 
the immigrants. If we leave the immigrant to be helped 
by representatives of foreign governments, by foreign 
societies, by a press and institutions conducted in a for- 
eign language and in the interest of foreign governments, 
and if we permit the immigrants to exist as alien groups, 
each group sundered from the rest of the citizens of the 
country, we shall store up for ourselves bitter trouble in 
the future. 

I am certain that the only permanently safe attitude 
for this country as regards national preparedness for self- 
defense is along the lines of obligatory universal service 
on the Swiss model. Switzerland is the most democratic 
of nations. Its army is the most democratic army in the 
world. There isn't a touch of militarism or aggressive- 



ness about Switzerland. It has been found as a matter 
of actual practical experience in Switzerland that the 
universal military training has made a very marked in- 
crease in social efficiency and in the ability of the man 
thus trained to do well for himself in industry. The man 
who has received the training is a better citizen, is more 
self-respecting, more orderly, better able to hold his own, 
and more willing to respect the rights of others, and at 
the same time he is a more valuable and better paid man 
in his business. We need that the navy and the army 
should be greatly increased and that their efficiency as 
units and in the aggregate should be increased to an even 
greater degree than their numbers. An adequate regular 
reserve should be established. Economy should be in- 
sisted on, and first of all in the abolition of useless army 
posts and navy yards. The National Guard should be 
supervised and controlled by the Federal War Depart- 
ment. Training camps such as at Plattsburg should be 
provided on a nation-wide basis and the government 
should pay the expenses. Foreign-born as well as native- 
born citizens should be brought together in those camps ; 
and each man at the camp should take the oath of allegi- 
ance as unreservedly and unqualifiedly as the men of the 
regular army and navy now take it. Not only should 
battleships, battle cruisers, submarines, aircraft, ample 
coast and field artillery be provided and a greater am- 
munition supply system, but there should be a utilization 
of those engaged in such professions as the ownership 
and management of motor cars, aviation, and the profes- 
sion of engineering. Map-making and road improve- 
ment should be attended to, and, as I have already said, 
the railroads brought into intimate touch with the War 
Department. Moreover, the government should deal 
with conservation of all necessary war supplies such as 



mine products, potash, oil lands and the like. Further- 
more, all munition plants should be carefully surveyed 
with special reference to their geographic distribution. 
Provision should be made for munition and supply fac- 
tories west of the Alleghenies. Finally, remember that 
the men must be sedulously trained in peace to use this 
material or we shall merely prepare our ships, guns and 
products as gifts to the enemy. All of these things 
should be done in any event. But let us never forget that 
the most important of all things is to introduce universal 
military service. 

Let me repeat that this preparedness against war must 
be based upon efficiency and justice in the handling 
of ourselves in time of peace. If belligerent govern- 
ments, while we are not hostile to them but merely neu- 
tral, strive nevertheless to make of this nation many 
nations, each hostile to the others and none of them loyal 
to the central government, then it may be accepted as 
certain that they would do far worse to us in time of war. 
If Germany and Austria encourage strikes and sabotage 
in our munition plants while we are neutral it may be 
accepted as axiomatic that they would do far worse to 
us if we were hostile. It is our duty from the stand- 
point of self-defence to secure the complete Americani- 
zation of our people; to make of the many peoples of 
this country a united nation, one in speech and feeling 
and all, so far as possible, sharers in the best that each 
has brought to our shores. 

The foreign-born population of this country must be an 
Americanized population no other kind can fight the 
battles of America either in war or peace. It must talk 
the language of its native-born fellow citizens, it must 
possess American citizenship and American ideals and 
therefore we native born citizens must ourselves prac- 



tice a high and fine idealism, and shun as we would the 
plague the sordid materialism which treats pecuniary 
profit and gross bodily comfort as the only evidences 
of success. It must stand firm by its oath of allegiance in 
word and deed and must show that in very fact it has re- 
nounced allegiance to every prince, potentate or foreign 
government. It must be maintained on an American 
standard of living so as to prevent labor disturbances in 
important plants and at critical times. None of these ob- 
jects can be secured as long as we have immigrant colo- 
nies, ghettos, and immigrant sections, and above all they 
cannot be assured so long as we consider the immigrant 
only as an industrial asset. The immigrant must not be al- 
lowed to drift or to be put at the mercy of the exploiter. 
Our object is not to imitate one of the older racial types, 
but to maintain a new American type and then to secure 
loyalty to this type. We cannot secure such loyalty 
unless we make this a country where men shall feel that 
they have justice and also where they shall feel that they 
are required to perform the duties imposed upon them. 
The policy of "Let alone" which we have hitherto pur- 
sued is thoroughly vicious from two standpoints. By this 
policy we have permitted the immigrants, and too often 
the native-born laborers as well, to suffer injustice. 
Moreover, by this policy we have failed to impress upon 
the immigrant and upon the native-born as well that they 
are expected to do justice as well as to receive justice, 
that they are expected to be heartily and actively and 
single-mindedly loyal to the flag no less than to benefit by 
living under it. 

We cannot afford to continue to use hundreds of thou- 
sands of immigrants merely as industrial assets while 
they remain social outcasts and menaces any more than 
fifty years ago we could afford to keep the black man 



merely as an industrial asset and not as a human being. 
We cannot afford to build a big industrial plant and herd 
men and women about it without care for their welfare. 
We cannot afford to permit squalid overcrowding or the 
kind of living system which makes impossible the decen- 
cies and necessities of life. We cannot afford the low 
wage rates and the merely seasonal industries which 
mean the sacrifice of both individual and family life and 
morals to the industrial machinery. We cannot afford 
to leave American mines, munitions plants and general 
resources in the hands of alien workmen, alien to Amer- 
ica and even likely to be made hostile to America by 
machinations such as have recently been provided in the 
case of the above-named foreign embassies in Washing- 
ton. We cannot afford to run the risk of having in time 
of war men working on our railways or working in our 
munition plants who would in the name of duty to their 
own foreign countries bring destruction to us. Recent 
events have shown us that incitements to sabotage and 
strikes are in the view of at least two of the great foreign 
powers of Europe within their definition of neutral prac- 
tices. What would be done to us in the name of war 
if these things are done to us in the name of neutrality? 

Justice Bowling in his speech has described the excel- 
lent fourth degree of your order, of how in it you dwell 
upon duties rather than rights, upon the great duties of 
patriotism and of national spirit. It is a fine thing to 
have a society that holds up such a standard of duty. 
I ask you to make a special effort to deal with Amer- 
icanization, the fusing into one nation, a nation necessar- 
ily different from all other nations, of all who come to 
our shores. Pay heed to the three principal essentials: 
(i) The need of a common language, English, with a 
minimum amount of illiteracy; (2) the need of a com- 



mon civil standard, similar ideals, beliefs and customs 
symbolized by the oath of allegiance to America ; and (3) 
the need of a high standard of living, of reasonable equal- 
ity of opportunity and of social and industrial justice. In 
every great crisis in our history, in the Revolution and in 
the Civil War, and in the lesser crises, like the Spanish 
War, all factions and races have been forgotten in the 
common spirit of Americanism. Protestant and Cath- 
olic, men of English or of French, of Irish or of German 
descent, have joined with a single-minded purpose to 
secure for the country what only can be achieved by the 
resultant union of all patriotic citizens. You of this 
organization have done a great service by your insistence 
that citizens should pay heed first of all to their duties. 
Hitherto undue prominence has been given to the ques- 
tion of rights. Your organization is a splendid engine for 
giving to the stranger within our gates a high conception 
of American citizenship. Strive for unity. We suffer at 
present from a lack of leadership in these matters. 

Even in the matter of national defence there is such a 
labyrinth of committees and counsels and advisers that 
there is a tendency on the part of the average citizen to 
become confused and do nothing. I ask you to help 
strike the note that shall unite our people. As a people 
we must be united. If we are not united we shall slip 
into the gulf of measureless disaster. We must be strong 
in purpose for our own defence and bent on securing 
justice within our borders. If as a nation we are split 
into warring camps, if we teach our citizens not to look 
upon one another as brothers but as enemies divided by 
the hatred of creed for creed or of those of one race 
against those of another race, surely we shall fail and 
our great democratic experiment on this continent will 
go down in crushing overthrow. I ask you here to-night 



and those like you to take a foremost part in the move- 
ment a young men's movement for a greater and bet- 
ter America in the future. 

All of us, no matter from what land our parents came, 
no matter in what way we may severally worship our 
Creator, must stand shoulder to shoulder in a united 
America for the elimination of race and religious preju- 
dice. We must stand for a reign of equal justice to both 
big and small. We must insist on the maintenance of the 
American standard of living. We must stand for an 
adequate national control which shall secure a better 
training of our young men in time of peace, both for the 
work of peace and for the work of war. We must direct 
every national resource, material and spiritual, to the 
task not of shirking difficulties, but of training our people 
to overcome difficulties. Our aim must be, not to make 
life easy and soft, not to soften soul and body, but to fit 
us in virile fashion to do a great work for all mankind. 
This great work can only be done by a mighty democracy, 
with those qualities of soul, guided by those qualities of 
mind, which will both make it refuse to do injustice to 
any other nation, and also enable it to hold its own 
against aggression by any other nation. In our relations 
with the outside world, we must abhor wrongdoing, and 
disdain to commit it, and we must no less disdain the 
baseness of spirit which tamely submits to wrongdoing. 
Finally and most important of all, we must strive for the 
establishment within our own borders of that stern and 
lofty standard of personal and public morality which 
shall guarantee to each man his rights, and which shall 
insist in return upon the full performance by each man 
of his duties both to his neighbor and to the great nation 
whose flag must symbolize in the future as it has symbol- 
ized in the past the highest hopes of all mankind. 



November 24, 1915. 
My dear Mr. Dutton: 

Even to nerves dulled and jaded by the heaped-up 
horrors of the past year and a half, the news of the 
terrible fate that has befallen the Armenians must give 
a fresh shock of sympathy and indignation. Let me 
emphatically point out that the sympathy is useless un- 
less it is accompanied with indignation, and that the 
indignation is useless if it exhausts itself in words in- 
stead of taking shape in deeds. 

If this people through its government had not shirked 
its duty in Mexico for the last five years, and if this 
people through its government had not shirked its duty 
in connection with the world war for the last six- 
teen months, we would now be able to take effective 
action on behalf of Armenia. Mass meetings on behalf 
of the Armenians amount to nothing whatever if they 
are mere methods of giving a sentimental but ineffective 
and safe outlet to the emotion of those engaged in them. 
Indeed they amount to less, than nothing. The habit 
of giving emotional expression to feelings without fol- 
lowing the expression by action is in the end thoroughly 
detrimental both to the will power and to the morality 
of the persons concerned. As long as this government 
proceeds, whether as regards Mexico or as regards 
Germany, whether as regards the European War, or as 
regards Belgium, on the principles of the peace-at-any- 
price men, of the professional pacifists, just so long 



it will be as absolutely ineffective for international right- 
eousness as China itself. The men who act on the motto 
of "safety first" are acting on a motto which could be 
appropriately used by the men on a sinking steamer who 
jump into the boats ahead of the women and children 
and who at least do not commemorate this fact by 
wearing buttons with "safety first" on them as a device. 
Until we put honor and duty first, and are willing to 
risk something in order to achieve righteousness both 
for ourselves and for others, we shall accomplish noth- 
ing; and we shall earn and deserve the contempt of 
the strong nations of mankind. 

One reason why I do not wish to take part in a mass 
meeting only for the denunciation of the atrocities com- 
mitted on the Armenians is because there are ignoble 
souls who have preached professional pacifism as a 
creed, or who have refused to attend similar meetings 
on behalf of the Belgians, who yet do not fear to take 
such action on behalf of the Armenians for the simple 
reason that there is in America no Turkish vote, and 
because Turkey is not our neighbor as Mexico is, and 
not a formidable aggressive power like Germany, and so 
it is safe both politically and materially to denounce 
her. The American professional pacifists, the Ameri- 
can men and women of the peace-at-any-price type, who 
join in meetings to "denounce war" or with empty words 
"protest" on behalf of the Armenians or other tortured 
and ruined peoples carry precisely the weight that an 
equal number of Chinese pacifists would carry if at 
a similar meeting they went through similar antics in 
Peking. They do not wear pigtails; but it is to be re- 
gretted that they do not carry some similar outward and 
visible sign of their inward and spiritual disgrace. They 
accomplish nothing for peace; and they do accomplish 



something against justice. They do harm instead of 
good; and they deeply discredit the nation to which 
they belong. It was announced the other day, by cer- 
tain politicians interested in securing votes, that at the 
end of the war this Government would "insist" on Rus- 
sia and Roumania doing justice to all Jews. The con- 
duct of this Government during the present war, and 
its utter refusal to back words with deeds, has made 
it utterly unable to "insist" on anything of the kind, 
whether as regards Russia or Roumania or any other 
power. A nation too timid to protect its own men, 
women and children from murder and outrage and too 
timid even to speak on behalf of Belgium, will not 
carry much weight by "protest" or "insistence" on be- 
half of the suffering Jews and Armenians. Foreign pow- 
ers will attribute such "protests" or "insistence," coupled 
with our failure to act in cases of other nationalities, 
merely to the fact that there is in this country neither 
a Russian nor a Turkish vote and will despise us 

All of the terrible iniquities of the past year and 
a half, including this crowning iniquity of the whole- 
sale slaughter of the Armenians, can be traced directly 
to the initial wrong committed on Belgium by her in- 
vasion and subjugation; and the criminal responsibility 
of Germany must be shared by the neutral powers, 
headed by the United States, for their failure to pro- 
test when this initial wrong was committed. In the 
case of the United States additional responsibility rests 
upon it because its lack of influence for justice and peace 
during the last sixteen months has been largely due to 
the course of timid and unworthy abandonment of duty 
which it has followed for nearly five years as regards 
Mexico. Scores of our soldiers have been killed and 



wounded, hundreds of our civilians, both men and 
women, have been murdered or outraged in person or 
property, by the Mexicans ; and we have not only taken 
no action but have permitted arms to be exported to 
the bandits who were cutting one another's throats in 
Mexico and who used these arms to kill Americans ; and 
although we have refused to help our own citizens 
against any of the chiefs of these bandits, we have 
now and then improperly helped one chief against an- 
other. The failure to do our duty in Mexico created 
the contempt which made Germany rightfully think it 
safe to go into the wholesale murder that accompanied 
the sinking of the Lusitania; and the failure to do our 
duty in the case of the Lusitania made Germany, acting 
through Austria, rightfully think it safe to go into the 
wholesale murder that marked the sinking of the 

The invasion of Belgium was followed by a policy 
of terrorism toward the Belgian population, the shoot- 
ing of men, women and children, the destruction of 
Dinant and Louvain and many other places; the bom- 
bardment of unfortified places, not only by ships and 
by land forces but by air-craft, resulting in the killing of 
many hundreds of civilians, men, women and children, 
in England, France, Belgium and Italy; in the destruc- 
tion of mighty temples and great monuments of art, 
in Rheims, in Venice, in Verona. The devastation of 
Poland and of Serbia has been awful beyond descrip- 
tion and has been associated with infamies surpassing 
those of the dreadful religious and racial wars of 
seventeenth-century Europe. Such deeds as have been 
done by the nominally Christian powers in Europe, from 
the invasion of Belgium by Germany to the killing of 
Miss Cavell by the German Government, things done 



wholesale, things done retail, have been such as we 
had hoped would never again occur in civilized war- 
fare. They are far worse than anything that has oc- 
curred in such warfare since the close of the Napole- 
onic contests a century ago. Such a deed as the exe- 
cution of Miss Cavell, for instance, would have been 
utterly impossible in the days of the worst excitement 
during our Civil War. For all of this, the pacifists 
who dare not speak for righteousness, and who pos- 
sess such an unpleasant and evil prominence in the 
United States, must share the responsibility with the 
most brutal type of militarists. The weak and timid 
milk-and-water policy of the professional pacifists is 
just as responsible as the blood-and-iron policy of the 
ruthless and unscrupulous militarist for the terrible 
recrudescence of evil on a gigantic scale in the civilized 

The crowning outrage has been committed by the. 
Turks on the Armenians. They have suffered atrocities 
so hideous that it is difficult to name them, atrocities 
such as those inflicted upon conquered nations by the 
followers of Attila and of Genghis Khan. It is dread- 
ful to think that these things can be done and that 
this nation nevertheless remains "neutral not only in 
deed but in thought," between right and the most hide- 
ous wrong, neutral between despairing and hunted peo- 
ple, people whose little children are murdered and their 
women raped, and the victorious and evil wrong- 

There are many sincere and wise men in China who 
are now endeavoring to lift China from the old con- 
ditions. These old conditions made her the greatest 
example of a pacifistic, peace-at-any-price, non-mili- 
taristic people. Because of their cult of pacifism, the 


Chinese, like the Koreans, and utterly unlike the Jap- 
anese, became absolutely powerless to defend them- 
selves, or to win or retain the respect of other nations. 
They were also of course utterly helpless to work for 
the good of others. The professional pacifists of the 
United States are seeking to make the United States 
follow in the footsteps of China. They represent what 
has been on the whole the most evil influence at work 
in the United States for the last fifty years; and for 
five years they have in international affairs shaped our 
governmental policy. These men, whether politicians, 
publicists, college presidents, capitalists, labor leaders, 
or self-styled philanthropists, have done everything they 
could to relax the fiber of the American character and 
weaken the strength of the American will. They teach 
our people to seek that debasing security which is to 
be found in love of ease, in fear of risk, in the craven 
effort to avoid any duty that is hard or hazardous 
a security which purchases peace in the present not only 
at the cost of humiliation in the present but at the cost 
of disaster in the future. They are seeking to Chinafy 
this country. In so doing they not only make us work 
for our own undoing, and for the ultimate ruin of the 
great democratic experiment for which our great Ameri- 
can republic stands ; but they also render us utterly pow- 
erless to work for others. We have refused to do our 
duty by Belgium; we refuse to do our duty by Ar- 
menia; because we have deified peace at any price, be- 
cause we have preached and practised that evil pacifism 
which is the complement to and the encouragement of 
alien militarism. Such pacifism puts peace above right- 
eousness, and safety in the present above both duty in 
the present and safety in the future. 

J trust that all Americans worthy of the name feel 


their deepest indignation and keenest sympathy aroused 
by the dreadful Armenian atrocities. I trust that they 
feel in the same way about the ruin of Belgium's na- 
tionality, and realize that a peace obtained without re- 
storing Belgium to its own people and righting the 
wrongs of the Armenians would be worse than any 
war. I trust they realize that unless America prepares 
to defend itself she can perform no duty to others; 
and under such circumstances she earns only derision 
if she prattles about forming a league for world peace, 
or about arbitration treaties and disarmament proposals, 
and commission-investigation treaties such as the un- 
speakably foolish ones negotiated a year or two ago at 
Washington and promptly disregarded by the very Ad- 
ministration that negotiated them. 

Let us realize that the words of the weakling and 
the coward, of the pacifist and the poltroon, are worth- 
less to stop wrongdoing. Wrongdoing will only be 
stopped by men who are brave as well as just, who put 
honor above safety, who are true to a lofty ideal of 
duty, who prepare in advance to make their strength 
effective, and who shrink from no hazard, not even 
the final hazard of war, if necessary in order to serve 
the great cause of righteousness. When our people 
take this stand, we shall also be able effectively to take 
a stand in international matters which shall prevent such 
cataclysms of wrong as have been witnessed in Belgium 
and on an even greater scale in Armenia. 

Sincerely yours, 


70 Fifth Ave., 

New York City. 
Chairman of the Committee on the Armenian Outrages. 


[Speech of Senator Miles Poindexter; reprinted from 
the Congressional Record of January 12, 1916.] 


IN a carefully prepared statement issued recently at 
Washington (Dec. 21, 1915) the Secretary of War, 
Mr. Garrison, representing President Wilson, and speak- 
ing in the unruffled serenity of that state of bliss in which 
'tis said 'tis folly to be wise, made the following engag- 
ing observations : 

"Mr. Roosevelt is welcomed as a convert on the issue 
of preparedness, but the front pew is already filled be- 
fore the conversion, and he must now rely on the strength 
of his voice for recognition. 

" 'Preparedness' was with him an acquired taste. 



Others brought it forward and urged it upon the atten- 
tion of the people, and it was only after he found that 
it suited their taste that he became vocal in its behalf." 


"Mark now, how plain a tale shall put you down," Mr. 

Theodore Roosevelt began to advocate preparedness 
33 years ago, and has advocated it unceasingly and un- 
waveringly from that time to the present moment. He 
has been during all those years at every opportunity 
not merely "vocal" on the subject but vociferously vocal. 

Shortly after his graduation from Harvard in 1882 
he wrote in the preface to his history of the War of 1812 
these passages: 


"The operations of this war on land teach nothing 
new; it is the old, old lesson that miserly economy in 
preparation may in the end involve a lavish outlay of 
men and money which, after all, comes too late to more 
than partially offset the evils produced by the original 
shortsighted parsimony. It was criminal folly for Jef- 
ferson and his follower, Madison, to neglect to give us 
a force either of Regulars or of well-trained Volunteers 
during the 12 years they had in which to prepare for 
the struggle that any one might see was inevitable. 

"The necessity for an efficient Navy is so evident 
that only our almost incredible shortsightedness prevents 
our at once preparing one." 

Fifteen years later, writing a condensed history of 
the same war for an English publication, Col. Roosevelt 
reiterated his earlier views : 


(From "The War with the United States, 1812-15," 


written for the English History of the Royal Navy in 

"Had America possessed (in 1812) a fleet of 20 ships 
of the line her sailors could have plied their trade un- 
molested, and the three years of war with its loss in 
blood and money would have been avoided. From the 
merely monetary standpoint such a navy would have been 
the cheapest kind of insurance, and morally its advan- 
tages would have been incalculable, for every Ameri- 
can worth the name would have lifted his head higher 
because of its existence." 


"But unfortunately the Nation lacked the wisdom to 
see this, and it chose and rechose for the Presidency 
Thomas Jefferson, who avowed that his 'passion was 
peace,' and whose timidity surpassed even his philan- 


"There never was a better example of the ultimate 
evil caused by a timid effort to secure peace and the 
refusal to make preparations for war than that afforded 
by the American people under the Presidencies of Jef- 
ferson and Madison." 

These citations disclose the original inventor of Presi- 
dent Wilson's "too-proud-to-fight" policy. Jefferson's 
"passion was peace." In his recent address to Con- 
gress, President Wilson said of the American people 
that "their passion is for peace." 

Instead of being a "convert" to any phase of President 
Wilson's policy, 18 years before that policy was put 
into operation Theodore Roosevelt was outlining it with 
singular accuracy and denouncing it as leading to na- 
tional humiliation and dishonor, as the following cita- 
tions abundantly testify : 




(Address, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, before 
the Naval War College, June, 1897.) 

"A really great people, proud and high-spirited, would 
face all the disasters of war rather than purchase that 
base prosperity which is bought at the price of national 


"Unreadiness for war is merely rendered more disas- 
trous by readiness to bluster; to talk defiance and advo- 
cate a vigorous policy in words, while refusing to back 
up these words by deeds, is cause for humiliation. 

No material loss can begin to compensate for the loss 
of national self-respect. 

No nation should ever wage war wantonly, but no 
nation should ever avoid it at the cost of national honor." 


"Diplomacy is utterly useless unless there is force be- 
hind it; the diplomat is the servant, not the master, of 
the soldier." 


(Speech at Chicago, April 2, 1903.) 

"This is in substance what my theory of what our 
foreign policy should be: Let us not boast, not insult 
any one, but make up our minds coolly what is neces- 
sary to say, and then stand by it whatever the conse- 
quences may be." 


(Speech at Clark University, Worcester, Mass., June 
21, 1905.) 

"Peace of a valuable type comes not to the man who 


craves it because he is afraid, but to the man who de- 
mands it because it is right. 

The peace granted contemptuously to the weakling 
and the coward is but a poor boon after it has been 


(Address at Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., 
June 22, 1905.) 

"I demand that the Nation do its duty and accept the 
responsibility that must go with greatness. 

I ask that the Nation dare to be great," and that in 
daring to be great it show that it knows how to do jus- 
tice to the weak no less than to exact justice from the 

In order to take such a position of being a great na- 
tion the one thing that we must not do is to bluff. 

The unpardonable thing is to say that we will act as 
a big nation and then decline to take the necessary steps 
to make the words good. 

Keep on building and maintaining at the highest point 
of efficiency the United States Navy or quit trying to be 
a big nation. Do one or the other." 


(Address at Harvard University, June 28, 1905.) 
"Of course I am for peace. Of course every President 
who is fit to be President must be for peace. But I am 
for one thing before peace; I am for righteousness first 
and then peace." 

(Address at Richmond, Va., October 18, 1905.) 
"Our mission in the world should be one of peace, but 
not the peace of cravens, the peace granted contemptu- 
ously to those who purchase it by surrendering the right. 
No! Our voice must be effective for peace because 


it is raised for righteousness first and for peace only 
as the handmaiden of righteousness." 

(Annual message to Congress, December 3, 1906.) 

"It must ever be kept in mind that war is not merely 
justifiable, but imperative upon honorable men, upon 
an honorable nation, where peace can only be obtained 
by the sacrifice of conscientious conviction or of na- 
tional welfare. 

Peace is normally a great good, and normally it coin- 
cides with righteousness; but it is righteousness and not 
peace which should bind the conscience of a nation, as 
it should bind the conscience of an individual; and 
neither a nation nor an individual can surrender con- 
science to another's keeping. 

A just war is in the long run far better for a nation's 
soul than the most prosperous peace obtained by acqui- 
escence in wrong or injustice." 


"Moreover, though it is criminal for a nation not to 
prepare for war, so that it may escape the dreadful 
consequences of being defeated in war, yet it must al- 
ways be remembered that even to be defeated in war 
may be far better than not to have fought at all. 

As has been well and finely said, a beaten nation is not 
necessarily a disgraced nation; but the nation or man is 
disgraced if the obligation to defend the right is shirked." 


(Address to the graduating class of the Naval Acad- 
emy, Annapolis, June 23, 1905.) 

"What we desire is to have it evident that this Nation 
seeks peace, not because it is afraid, but because it 
believes in the eternal laws of justice and right living." 


(Annual message to Congress, December 5, 1905.) 


"A wanton or useless war, or a war of mere aggres-N 
sion in short, any war begun or carried on in a con- 
scienceless spirit is to be condemned as a peculiarly 
atrocious crime against all humanity. 

Our aim is righteousness. Peace is normally the hand- 
maiden of righteousness; but when peace and right- 
eousness conflict, then a great and upright people can 
never for a moment hesitate to follow the path which 
leads toward righteousness, even though that path also 
leads to war." 


When President Wilson put into operation the pre- 
cise policy thus condemned in advance, what choice had 
Col. Roosevelt but to denounce him? Could he, on the 
plea that all must "stand by the President," abandon the 
convictions and utterances of a lifetime and defend a 
policy of national dishonor? 

"I would have thrown up my hat for Wilson," the 
Colonel said recently, "if only he had given me the chance 
by acting in the Presidency as a sound American of 
rugged strength and patriotism. When he trailed the 
honor of the United States in the dust, I, as a good 
American, had no alternative but to oppose him." 

So long ago as 1905, as the first quotation cited above 
shows, the Colonel specified the kind of war that Ger- 
many is waging as a "particularly atrocious crime against 
all humanity," and defined the course which, in his opin- 
ion, the Nation should not for a moment hesitate to 
follow in regard to it. 


Not in words alone but in acts does Col. Roosevelt's 
record show flat disagreement with the Wilson policy 
in international controversies. What stronger contrast 
could there be to President Wilson's methods in deal- 



ing with Germany than is afforded in the following 
incident, which is described in a recently published "Life 
of John Hay"? 


(From the "Life of John Hay," by William Roscoe 
Thayer, Vol. II, pp. 284, 285, 286.) 

"In 1902 one of the periodic outbreaks to which Ven- 
ezuela was addicted gave him (Hay) an excuse for put- 
ting to the test whether or not the United States would 
defend the Monroe Doctrine by force of arms. The 
Venezuelans owed the Germans, the English, and the 
Italians large amounts, which they had put off paying 
until their creditors began to suspect that they never 
intended to pay at all. The Kaiser apparently counted 
on the resistance of the Venezuelans to furnish him a 
pretext for occupying one or more of their seaboard 

In order to disguise the fact that this was a German 
undertaking, he looked about for accomplices who would 
give to it an international semblance. It happened just 
at that time that Germany found herself isolated, as 
France and Russia had renewed their bond of friend- 
ship. England, too, always suspicious of Russia, and 
recently irritated by France, seemed to be looking for 
a friend. 

By offers which cannot yet be made public, Germany 
persuaded the Tory government to draw closer to her. 
The immediate result of this adventure in international 
coquetry was the joint demand of Germany and England 
on Venezuela to pay them their due. Venezuela pro- 

The allies then sent warships and established what 
they called a 'pacific blockade' on the Venezuelan ports 
(December 8, 1901). During the following year Sec- 



retary Hay tried to persuade the blockaders of the un- 
wisdom of their action. He persistently called their 
attention to the fact that a 'pacific blockade' was a con- 
tradiction in terms and that its enforcement against the 
rights of neutral nations could not be tolerated. He 
also urged arbitration. 

Germany deemed that her opportunity had now come, 
and on December 8, 1902, she and Great Britain sev- 
ered diplomatic relations with Venezuela, making it plain 
that the next steps would be the bombardment of Ven- 
ezuelan towns and the occupation of Venezuelan 

Here came the test of the Monroe Doctrine. If the 
United States permitted foreign nations, under the pre- 
tense of supporting their creditors' claims, to invade 
a weak debtor State by naval or military expedition, 
and to take possession of its territory, what would be- 
come of the doctrine? 


At this point the direction of the American policy 
passed from Secretary Hay to President Roosevelt. 

England and Italy were willing to come to an under- 
standing. Germany refused. She stated that if she took 
possession of territory such possession would only be 
'temporary'; but such possessions easily become per- 
manent; and, besides, it is difficult to trust the guaran- 
ties which may be treated as 'scraps of paper.' 

President Roosevelt did not shirk the test. Although 
his action has never been officially described, there is 
no reason now for not describing it. 

One day, when the crisis was at its height, he sum- 
moned to the White House Dr. Holleben, the German 
ambassador, and told him that unless Germany consented 
to arbitrate, the American squadron under Admiral 


Dewey would be given orders by noon 10 days later to 
proceed to the Venezuelan coast and prevent any taking 
possession of Venezuelan territory. 

Dr. Holleben began to protest that his imperial master, 
having once refused to arbitrate, could not change his 
mind. The President said that he was not arguing the 
question, because arguments had already been gone over 
until no useful purpose would be served by repeating 
them; he was simply giving information which the am- 
bassador might think it important to transmit to Berlin. 


A week passed in silence. Then Dr. Holleben again 
called on the President, but said nothing of the Ven- 
ezuelan matter. When he rose to go, the President 
asked him about it, and when he stated that he had 
received nothing from his Government, the President in- 
formed him in substance that in view of this fact Ad- 
miral Dewey would be instructed to sail a day earlier 
than the day he, the President, had originally mentioned. 

Much perturbed, the ambassador protested ; the Presi- 
dent informed him that not a stroke of a pen had been 
put on paper; that if the Emperor would agree to arbi- 
trate, he, the President, would heartily praise him for 
such action and would treat it as taken on German 
initiative; but that within 48 hours there must be an 
offer to arbitrate or Dewey would sail with orders 

Within 36 hours Dr. Holleben returned to the White 
House and announced to President Roosevelt that a 
dispatch had just come from Berlin, saying that the 
Kaiser would arbitrate. 

Neither Admiral Dewey (who with an American fleet 
was then maneuvering in the West Indies) nor any one 
else knew of the step that was to be taken; the naval 


authorities were merely required to be in readiness, but 
were not told what for. 

On the announcement that Germany had consented to 
arbitrate, the President publicly complimented the Kaiser 
on being so staunch an advocate of arbitration. 

The humor of this was probably relished more in the 
White House than in the palace at Berlin." 

In this wise the German Kaiser learned that the Mon- 
roe Doctrine was a fact. 

There was no note, sharp or otherwise, no bluff or 
bluster. Simply verbal information to Germany that the 
step contemplated by her would not be tolerated that 
if she did not abandon it the American fleet would sail 
for the scene of action. 


Two years later, on a much smaller scale, another 
international controversy arose. This raised the simple 
question of whether or not the United States Govern- 
ment could be depended upon to protect its citizens 
abroad as well as at home. This case is recorded also 
by Mr. Thayer. 


"In June, 1904, an American citizen, Ion H. Perdicaris, 
was seized by Raizuli, a Moroccan bandit, and held for 
ransom. After much shilly-shallying, and threats by 
Raizuli that he would kill his prisoner unless the money 
was speedily paid, Hay cabled to Gummere, American 
consul at Tangier, on June 22 : 

'We want Perdicaris alive or Raizuli dead/ adding 
that Gummere was 'not to commit us about landing 
marines or seizing customhouse.' 

In his diary Hay made the following entries: 

'June 23. My telegram to Gummere had an uncalled- 



for success. It is curious how a concise impropriety 
hits the public.' 

'June 24. Gummere telegraphs that he expects Per- 
dicaris to-night' 

'June 27. Perdicaris wires his thanks.' " 

"So speedily," comments William Roscoe Thayer, in 
his "Life of John Hay," "did even a brigand, appar- 
ently safe in the depths of Morocco, recognize the note 
of command in the voice from over seas." 


The news of the cable message was published on June 
22. The Republican national convention, which on the 
following day nominated Roosevelt for President, was 
in session at the time in Chicago. The correspondent of 
the New York Tribune wrote about it as follows : 

" 'Perdicaris alive or Raizuli dead' went through the 
convention like an electric thrill, and it was more talked 
about at night than any feature of the day's work. The 
prevailing impression was that if Secretary Hay had 
sent the telegram it was after consultation with the 
President, and that there must have been ample jus- 
tification. Delegates from all sections of the country 
discussed it in all its potential phases, and in almost every 
instance warmly commended it. 

" 'It is pithy, pungent, and peremptory. I like it, and 
so do the people,' said Senator McComas, of Maryland. 

" 'It is the kind of a telegram,' said Senator Spooner, 
of Wisconsin, 'that would provoke rapturous applause in 
any political convention. It touches a popular chord. 
This Government is bound to protect its citizens abroad 
as well as at home.' 

" 'The American people will not back down on a mes- 
sage of that kind,' said Representative Grosvenor, of 
Ohio. 'The people admire a declaration of that kind 



when the justification is sufficient. It may not be couched 
exactly in diplomatic words, but its meaning is unmistak- 
able. The people are quick to respond when their pa- 
triotism is appealed to. The Morocco bandit will find 
that there is a vigorous and united sentiment supporting 
the President and Secretary Hay in the stand they have 

"'It was good, hot stuff, and echoed my sentiments,' 
said Congressman Dwight, of New York. 'The people 
want an administration that will stand by its citizens, 
even if it takes a fleet to do it.' 

" 'It was magnificent magnificent !' said Senator De- 
pew. 'Every right-minded American will heartily in- 
dorse Mr. Hay's strong stand.' 

" 'Do I like it ?' exclaimed W. A. Elstun, of Kansas, 
one of the delegates. 'Bet your bottom dollar I like it. 
Roosevelt is behind that cable message to that fine old 
body snatcher, Raisuli. Out in Kansas we believe in 
keeping the peace but in fighting against the wrong. 
Roosevelt and Hay know what they are doing. Our 
people like courage. We'll stand for anything those two 
men do.' " 

Commenting on the message a few days later, after 
Perdicaris had been released, the Tribune said : 

"It is easy to sneer at it. A dog may bay at the moon. 
But every rational man knows that a nation that does not 
protect its own citizens is unworthy of the name of Gov- 
ernment, and that, moreover, the only way to make citi- 
zenship respected and secure is to make outrage upon it 


The quoted comments by American statesmen reflect 
accurately the old-time American view of what the duty 
of a national administration is in cases affecting the lives 



of American citizens abroad. It accords with the view 
of that duty which Theodore Roosevelt holds and ex- 
pounds to-day, as he has always held and expounded it. 
It is diametrically opposed to the policy pursued by the 
Wilson administration. In both the instances above re- 
ferred to the outcome was not war, but peace with honor. 

From the moment he became Assistant Secretary of 
the Navy in 1897, down to the time when he retired from 
the Presidency in 1909, in all his public addresses, in all 
his annual messages to Congress, Col. Roosevelt advo- 
cated with tireless energy preparedness for war as the 
surest guaranty for peace. For the information of Sec- 
retary Garrison a partial collection of these utterances, 
beginning with those of his annual messages, is appended : 


(First annual message to Congress Dec. 7, 1901.) 
"The work of upbuilding the Navy must be steadily 
continued. No one point of our policy, foreign or do- 
mestic, is more important than this to the honor and 
material welfare, and above all, to the peace of our Na- 
tion in the future." 


"It was forethought and preparation which secured us 
the overwhelming triumph in 1898. If we fail to show 
forethought and preparation now there may come a time 
when disaster will befall us instead of triumph." 
(Second annual message to Congress, Dec. 2, 1902.) 
"There should be no halt in the work of building up the 
Navy, providing every year additional fighting craft." 


"A good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the 
surest guaranty of peace. 



The refusal to maintain such a Navy would invite 
trouble, and if trouble came would insure disaster. 

Fatuous self-complacency or vanity, or shortsighted- 
ness in refusing to prepare for danger, is both foolish 
and wicked in such a Nation as ours, and past experience 
has shown that such fatuity in refusing to recognize or 
prepare for any crisis in advance is usually succeeded by 
a mad panic of hysterical fear once the crisis has actually 


"The Army has been reduced to the minimum allowed 
by law. It is very small for the size of the Nation, and 
most certainly should be kept at the highest point of effi- 


"I urgently call your attention to the need of passing a 
bill providing for a general staff and for the reorganiza- 
tion of the supply department on the lines of the bill pro- 
posed by the Secretary of War last year." 


(Third annual message to Congress, Dec. 7, 1903.) 
"I heartily congratulate the Congress upon the steady 
progress in building up the American Navy. We can not 
afford a let-up in this great work. To stand still means 
to go back." 


"The effect of the law providing a general staff for the 
Army and for the more effective use of the National 
Guard has been excellent. Great improvement has been 
made in the efficiency of our Army in recent years. 
We should not rest satisfied with what has been done." 
(Fourth annual message to Congress, Dec. 4, 1904.) 
"I most earnestly recommend that there be no halt in 
the work of upbuilding the American Navy." 




"Our voice is now potent for peace, and is so potent 
because we are not afraid of war. But our protestations 
upon behalf of peace would neither receive nor deserve 
the slightest attention if we were impotent to make them 

It is very important that the officers of the Army should 
be accustomed to handle their men in masses, as it is 
also important that the National Guard of the several 
States should be accustomed to actual field maneuvering, 
especially in connection with the regulars." 


(Fifth annual message to Congress, Dec. 5, 1905.) 

"We have most wisely continued for a number of years 
to build up our Navy, and it has now reached a fairly 
high standard of efficiency. This standard of efficiency 
must not only be maintained, but increased. 

We now have a very small Army indeed, one well- 
nigh infinitesimal when compared with the army of any 
other large nation. 

I do not believe that any army in the world has a better 
average of enlisted men or a better type of junior officer, 
but the Army should be trained to act effectively in mass." 

(Sixth annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1906.) 

"The United States Navy is the surest guarantee of 
peace which this country possesses. 

I do not ask that we increase our Navy. I ask merely 
that it be maintained at its present strength, and this can 
be done only if we replace the obsolete outworn ships by 
new and good ones, the equals of any afloat in any navy. 

In both the Army and Navy there is urgent need that 
everything possible should be done to maintain the high- 
est standard for the personnel, alike as regards the offi- 
cers and the enlisted men." 




"The little Republic of Switzerland offers us an excel- 
lent example in all matters connected with building up 
an efficient citizen soldiery." 


(Seventh annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907.) 

"To build one battleship of the best and most advanced 
type a year would hardly keep our fleet up to its present 
force. This is not enough. In my judgment we should 
this year provide for four battleships. 

Again and again in the past our little Regular Army 
has rendered service literally vital to the country and it 
may at any time have to do so in the future. 

Its standard of efficiency and instruction is higher now 
than ever in the past. But it is too small. There are not 
enough officers, and it is impossible to secure enough 
enlisted men." 


"We should maintain in peace a fairly complete skele- 
ton of a large army. 

In particular it is essential that we should possess a 
number of extra officers trained in peace to perform effi- 
ciently the duties urgently required upon the breaking out 
of war." 

From public utterances made by Col. Roosevelt at vari- 
ous points throughout the country during the same period, 
the following instructive citations are taken, my desire 
being to have Secretary Garrison's information thorough 
and complete : 


(Address as Assistant Secretary of the Navy before the 
Naval War College, June, 1897.) 



"We must make up our minds once for all to the fact 
that it is too late to make ready for war when the fight 
is once begun. 

There must be adequate preparation for conflict, if 
conflict is not to mean disaster. Furthermore, this prep- 
aration must take the shape of an efficient fighting navy." 


"In public as in private life, a bold front tends to insure 
peace and not strife. 

If we possess a formidable navy, small is the chance, 
indeed, that we shall ever be dragged into a war to uphold 
the Monroe Doctrine. If we do not possess such a navy, 
war may be forced on us at any time." 


"We ask that the work of upbuilding the Navy and of 
putting the United States where it should be put among 
the maritime powers go forward without a break. We 
ask this not in the interest of war, but in the interest of 


"In all our history there has never been a time when 
preparedness for war was any menace to peace. 

On the contrary, again and again we have owed peace 
to the fact that we were prepared for war." 


(Address to the graduating class, Naval Academy, An- 
napolis, May 2, 1902.) 

"We all of us earnestly hope that the occasion for war 
may never arise, but if it has to come, then this Nation 
must win ; and in winning the prime factor must of neces- 
sity be the United States Navy. If the Navy fails us, 
then we are doomed to defeat." 


"In battle the only shots that count are those that hit, 


and marksmanship is a matter of long practice and intel- 
ligent reasoning." 


"A navy's efficiency in a war depends mainly upon its 
preparedness at the outset of that war. We are not to 
be excused as a nation if there is not such preparedness 
of our Navy." 


(Speech at Chamber of Commerce banquet, New 
York, Nov. n, 1902.) 

"We need to keep in a condition of preparedness, espe- 
cially as regards our Navy, not because we want war, but 
because we desire to stand with those whose plea for 
peace is listened to with respectful attention." 


(Speech at San Francisco, May 14, 1903.) 

"Remember that after the war has begun it is too late 
to improvise a navy. A naval war is two-thirds settled in 
advance, at least two-thirds, because it is mainly settled 
by the preparation which has gone on for years preceding 
its outbreak. We won at Manila because the shipbuilders 
of the country, under the wise provisions of Congress, had 
for 15 years before been preparing the Navy." 

(Speech in Brooklyn, May 30, 1905.) 

"If our Navy is good enough, we have a long career of 
peace before us. The only likelihood of trouble ever com- 
ing to us as a Nation will arise if we let our Navy become 
too small or inefficient." 



"Every warship which is not first class in efficiency be- 
comes in battle not a help to the Nation, but a menace to 
the national honor." 




(Speech at the banquet of the National Convention for 
the Extension of the Foreign Commerce of the United 
States, Washington, Jan. 16, 1907.) 

"Remember, gentlemen, that the prime use of the United 
States Navy is to avert war. The United States Navy 
is the cheapest insurance Uncle Sam has. It is the surest 
guaranty against our ever being drawn into war ; and the 
guaranty is effective in proportion as the Navy is effi- 


(Speech at Cairo, 111., Oct. 3, 19x57.) 
"It is utterly impossible to improvise a makeshift navy 
under conditions of modern warfare." 


"The Navy must be built and all its training given in 
time of peace. When once war has broken out it is too 
late to do anything." 


(Speech at Fargo, N. Dak., Apr. 7, 1903.) 

"I believe that no other great country has such fine 
natural material for volunteer soldiers as we have, and it 
is the obvious duty of the Nation and of the States to 
make such provision as will enable the volunteer soldiery 
to be organized with all possible rapidity and efficiency 
in time of war; and, furthermore, to help in every way 
the National Guard in time of peace." 

It is quite plain from these various utterances in mes- 
sages and addresses that Col. Roosevelt has been advo- 
cating for nearly 20 years the same kind of efficient army 
and navy as he is advocating to-day. 

"What I ask for," he said recently, "is a big efficient 
navy, and a small efficient army of a quarter of a million 



men, and back of the Army a nation of freemen trained 
to the use of arms." 

So also with the danger of militarism and other argu- 
ments of the peace-at-any-price advocates. His opinions 
of these to-day are the same that he has always held, as 
a few citations will show : 


(Annual message to Congress, Dec. 3, 1907.) 

"Not only there is not now, but there never has been, 

any other nation in the world so wholly free from the 

evils of militarism as is ours." 


"There are, of course, foolish people who denounce any 
care of the Army or Navy as militarism, but I do not 
think that these people are numerous. 

Declamation against militarism has no moe serious 
place in an earnest and intelligent movement for right- 
eousness in this country than declamation against the 
worship of Baal or Ashtaroth." 


(Speech before the Hamilton Club, Apr. 10, 1899.) 

"If in 1861 the men who loved the Union had believed 
that peace was the end of all things, and war and strife 
the worst of all things, and had acted up to their belief, 
we would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives; we 
would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Moreover, besides saving all the blood and treasure we 
then lavished, we would have prevented the heartbreak 
of many women, the dissolution of many homes, and we 
would have spared the country those months of gloom 
and shame when it seemed as if our Armies marched only 
to defeat. 

We could have avoided all this suffering simply by 
shrinking from strife. And if we had thus avoided it, we 



would have shown that we were weaklings and that we 
were unfit to stand among the great nations of the earth. 
Thank God for the iron in the blood of our fathers, the 
men who upheld the wisdom of Lincoln and bore sword 
or rifle in the Armies of Grant and Lee ! Let us, the chil- 
dren of the men who proved themselves equal to the 
mighty days let us, the children of the men who carried 
the great Civil War to a triumphant conclusion, praise 
the God of our fathers that the ignoble counsels of peace 
were rejected ; that the suffering and loss, the blackness 
of sorrow and despair, were unflinchingly faced and the 
years of strife endured; for in the end the slave was 
freed, the Union restored, and the mighty American Re- 
public placed once more as a helmeted queen among 


(From Life of Thomas H. Benton, written in 1887.) 
"A class of professional noncombatants is as hurtful 
to the healthy growth of a nation as a class of fire eaters, 
for a weakness or folly is nationally as bad as a vice, or 
worse. No man who is not willing to bear arms and to 
fight for his rights can give a good reason why he should 
be entitled to the privilege of living in a free community." 


(From the "War with the United States, 1812-1815," 
written for the English History of the Royal Navy in 

"Both Britain and America have produced men of the 
'peace-at-any-price' pattern, and in America, in one great 
crisis at least, these men cost the Nation more in blood 
and wealth than the political leaders most recklessly indif- 
ferent to war have ever cost it." 




(Letter to Carl Schurz, Sept. 8, 1905, published in 
Autobiography. ) 

"I thank you for your congratulations [upon the con- 
clusion of peace between Japan and Russia]. If I had 
been known as one of the conventional type of peace 
advocates, I could have done nothing whatever in bring- 
ing about peace now, I would be powerless in the future 
to accomplish anything, and I would not have been able 
to help confer the boons upon Cuba, the Philippines, 
Porto Rico, and Panama, brought about by our action 

If this country had not fought the Spanish War, if 
we had failed to take the action we did about Panama, 
all mankind would have been the loser." 


"While the Turks were butchering the Armenians the 
European powers kept the peace, and thereby added a 
burden of infamy to the nineteenth century, for in keep- 
ing the peace a greater number of lives were lost than in 
any European war since Napoleon, and these lives were 
those of women and children as well as of men; while 
the moral degradation, the brutality inflicted and endured, 
the aggregate hideous wrong done, surpassed that of any 
war of which we have record in modern times." 


"Unjust war is dreadful; a just war may be the high- 
est duty. To have the best nations, the free and civilized 
nations, disarm and leave the despotisms and barbar- 
isms with great military force would be a calamity com- 
pared to which the calamities caused by all the wars of 
the nineteenth century would be trivial." 


(In the Outlook, September 9, 1911.) 


"Our chief usefulness to humanity rests on our com- 
bining power with high purpose; and high purpose by 
itself is utterly useless if the power to put it into effect 
is lacking." 


"In the history of our country the peace advocates who 
treat peace as more than righteousness will never be, 
and never have been, of service, either to the nation or to 

The true lovers of peace, the men who have really 
helped onward the movement for peace, have been those 
who followed, even though afar off, in the footsteps of 
Washington and Lincoln and stood for righteousness as 
the supreme end of national life." 


(In the Outlook, November 14, 1911.) 

"A complete absence of militarism in China and China's 
effort to rely purely on pacific measures in dealing with 
all foreign powers have not only caused it to lose various 
Provinces to various foreign powers within the last few 
decades, but have had not the smallest effect in saving 
it from tyranny, misgovernment, and the most far- 
reaching economic misery at home ; and, moreover, have 
had the effect of depriving it of means of keeping order 
within its own boundaries." 

Col. Roosevelt's poor . opinion of the usefulness of 
arbitration treaties when unbacked by force is not the 
outgrowth of developments of the present war, but, like 
his opinions on the other vital questions of national pol- 
icy, is a matter of long-standing conviction: 


(Address to the graduating class of the Naval Acad- 
emy, Annapolis, January 30, 1905.) 



"The adoption of those (arbitration) treaties by them- 
selves would not bring peace. We are a good many 
years short of the millennium yet; and for the present 
and immediate future we can rest assured that the word 
of the man who is suspected of desiring peace because 
he is afraid of war will count for little." 


(Address, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, before 
the Naval War College, June, 1897.) 

"Arbitration is an excellent thing, but ultimately those 
who wish to see this country at peace with foreign na- 
tions will be wise if they place reliance upon a first- 
class fleet of first-class battleships rather than on any 
arbitration treaty which the wit of men can devise." 

(Address at dinner of the Sons of the American Revo- 
lution, New York, March 17, 1905.) 

"I know one excellent gentleman in Congress who said 
he preferred arbitration to battleships. So do I. But 
suppose the other man does not? I want to have the 
battleships as a provocative for arbitration so far as 
the other man is concerned. 

We have now got our Navy up to a good point. We 
have built and are building 40 armored ships. For 
a year or two, or two or three years, to come what we 
need to do is to provide for the personnel of those ships 
and to secure the very highest standard of efficiency in 
handling them, singly and in squadrons; above all, for 
handling the great guns." 


(Annual message to Congress, December 3, 1906.) 
"The chance for the settlement of disputes peacefully, 
by arbitration, now depends mainly upon the possession 



by the nations that mean to do right of sufficient armed 
strength to make their purpose effective." 


(Annual message to Congress, December 3, 1907.) 
"It is evident (from the failure of The Hague confer- 
ence to take action on the limitation of armament) that 
it is folly for this Nation to base any hope of securing 
peace on any international agreement as to the limitation 
of armaments. Such being the fact, it would be most 
unwise to stop the upbuilding of our Navy." 


(Address before the Nobel Prize Committee, Chris- 
tiania, Norway, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, May 
5, I9io.) 

"All really civilized communities should have effective 
arbitration treaties among themselves. I believe that 
these treaties can cover almost all questions liable to 
arise between such nations, if they are drawn with the 
explicit agreement that each contracting party will re- 
spect the other's territory and its absolute sovereignty 
within that territory, and the equally explicit agreement 
that (aside from the very rare cases where the nation's 
honor is vitally concerned) all other possible subjects 
of controversy will be submitted to arbitration. Such a 
treaty would insure peace unless one party deliberately 
violated it. Of course, as yet, there is no adequate safe- 
guard against such deliberate violation, but the estab- 
lishment of a sufficient number of these treaties would 
go a long way toward creating a world opinion which 
would finally find expression in the provision of methods 
to forbid or punish such violation." 


"Something should be done as soon as possible to check 
the growth of armaments, especially naval armaments, 



by international agreement. No one power could or 
should act by itself ; for it is eminently undesirable, from 
the standpoint of the peace of righteousness, that a 
power which really does believe in peace should place it- 
self at the mercy of some rival which may at bottom 
have no such belief and no intention of acting on it. 

Finally, it would be a master stroke if those great pow- 
ers honestly bent on peace would form a league of peace, 
not only to keep the peace among themselves but to 
prevent, by force if necessary, its being broken by 


"The supreme difficulty in connection with developing 
the peace work of The Hague arises from the lack of 
any executive power, of any police power, to enforce 
the decrees of the court. 

Each nation must keep well prepared to defend itself 
until the establishment of some form of international 
police power, competent and willing to prevent violence 
as between nations. 

As things are now, such power to command peace 
throughout the world could only be assured by some com- 
bination between those great nations which sincerely 
desire peace and have no thought themselves of com- 
mitting aggressions." 


"The combination might at first be only to secure peace 
within certain definite limits and certain definite condi- 
tions, but the ruler or statesman who should bring about 
such a combination would have earned his place in his- 
tory for all time and his title to the gratitude of all 


(In the Outlook, November 4, 1911.) 


"This war (between Italy and Turkey) proves the ut- 
ter inefficiency of paper treaties when they are unbacked 
by force ; the utter folly of those who believe that these 
paper treaties accomplish any useful purpose in the 
present stage of the world's development when there 
is no force behind them; and, finally, not merely the 
folly but the iniquity of making treaties which there is 
no real intention of putting into effect." 


"It would be not merely foolish but wicked for us as 
a Nation to agree to arbitrate any dispute that affects 
our vital interest or our independence or honor, be- 
cause such an agreement would amount on our part to 
a covenant to abandon our duty, to an agreement to 
surrender the rights of the American people about un- 
known matters at unknown times in the future. 

Such an agreement would be wicked if kept, and yet 
to break it as it undoubtedly would be broken if the 
occasion arose would be only less shameful than keep- 
ing it." 

Even on the subject of hyphenated Americans, the 
views which Col. Roosevelt has been expressing since 
the outbreak of the European War are not new. He 
uttered the same sentiments more than 20 years ago and 
has reiterated them frequently since. 


(From "True Americanism," published April, 1894.) 
"We welcome the German or the Irishman who becomes 
an American. We have no use for the German or Irish- 
man who remains such. We do not wish German- 
Americans and Irish-Americans who figure as such in 
our social and political life; we want only Americans, 
and, provided they are such, we do not care whether 



they are of native or of Irish or of German ancestry. 
We have no room in any healthy American community 
for a German- American vote or an Irish- American vote, 
and it is contemptible demagogy to put planks into 
any party platform with the purpose of catching such 
a vote. We have no room for any people who do not 
act and vote simply as Americans and as nothing else." 


(Speech at New Mexico, May 5, 1903.) 
"There were men in my regiment (in the Spanish War) 
who themselves were born in England, Ireland, Ger- 
many, or Scandinavia, but there was not a man, no 
matter what his creed, what his birthplace, what his 
ancestry, who was not an American and nothing else." 


(Speech at Butte, Mont, May 27, 1903.) 

"If we are to preserve this Republic as it was founded, 
as it was handed down to us by the men of sixty-one 
to sixty-five, and as it is and will be, we must draw 
the line never between section and section, never between 
creed and creed, thrice never between class and class; 
but along the line of conduct, the line that separates 
the good citizen wherever he may be found from the 
bad citizen wherever he may be found." 


(Message to Congress, December 6, 1904.) 
"Good Americanism is a matter of heart, of conscience, 
of lofty aspiration, of sound common sense, but not of 
birthplace or of creed. The medal of honor, the high- 
est prize to be won by those who serve in the Army 
and the Navy of the United States, decorates men born 
here, and it also decorates men born in Great Britain 
and Ireland, in Germany, in Scandinavia, in France, and 
doubtless in other countries also." 




(Speech at dinner of the Friendly Sons of St. Pat- 
rick, New York, March 17, 1905.) 

"My fellow countrymen, I have spoken to-night espe- 
cially of what has been done for this Nation of ou/s 
by men of Irish blood. But, after all, in speaking to 
you or to any body of my fellow citizens, no matter 
from what Old World country they themselves or their 
forefathers may have come, the great thing is to re- 
member that we are all of us Americans. Let us keep 
our pride in the stocks from which we have sprung, 
but let us show that pride, not by holding aloof from 
one another, least of all by preserving the Old World 
jealousies and bitternesses, but by joining in a spirit of 
generous rivalry to see which can do most for our great 
common country." 

Finally, in regard to the Monroe Doctrine and the 
necessity of upholding it by force in case of need, Col. 
Roosevelt has for years held and advocated no uncer- 
tain views. 



(At Augusta, Me., August 26, 1902.) 

"The Monroe Doctrine is simply a statement of our 
very firm belief that on this continent the nations now 
existing here must be le'ft to work out their own des* 
tinies among themselves and that the continent is not 
longer to be regarded as colonizing ground for any Euro- 
pean nation. 

The only power on the continent that can make that 
doctrine effective is, of course, ourselves, for in the 
world as it is, gentlemen, the nation which advances a 
given doctrine likely to interfere in any way with other 



nations must possess power to back it up if she wishes 
the doctrine to be respected." 


(Speech at Chicago, April 2, 1903.) 

"I believe in the Monroe Doctrine with all my heart 
and soul. I am convinced that the immense majority 
of our fellow countrymen so believe in it; but I would 
infinitely prefer to see us abandon it than to see us put 
it forward and bluster about it, and yet fail to build 
up the efficient fighting strength which in the last resort 
can alone make it respected by any strong foreign power 
whose interest it may ever happen to be to violate it." 

"There is a homely old adage which runs : 'Speak softly 
and carry a big stick; you will go far.' If the Ameri- 
can Nation will speak softly, and yet build, and keep 
at a pitch of the highest training, a thoroughly efficient 
Navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far." 


UA Roosevelt, Theodore 

23 Fear God and take your own 

R7 part